Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 24, 2026 

I have previously addressed the lie that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. Now I want to look specifically at the question of how many Americans, both civilian and military, have been killed by proxies who have received assistance from Iran. I will flip the script… How many Iranians, civilian and military, have been killed by US proxies? The numbers are staggering. US proxies have killed almost 28,000 times the number of Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. These numbers come primarily from US Department of Justice indictments, State Department reports, American Jewish Committee (AJC), and compiled victim databases.

The principal Iranian proxies routinely identified in US government reports on terrorism are Hamas, Hezbollah, and a variety of Iraqi-Shia groups. If I used the strict definition of terrorism — i.e., the use of violence against civilians for political purposes — the number of actual terrorist deaths from Iranian proxies would be less than 300 since 1979. If I relied only on the strict definition, I would exclude all attacks on military targets. However, since the US statistics on terrorism include the 1983 bombing of the US Marines barracks in Lebanon and the roadside bombs targeting US forces in Iraq from 2003 -2011, I am including the military fatalities for both sides.

HAMAS

At least 60–70 Americans (including dual US-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hamas since its founding in 1987. This is an approximate total based on US government, DOJ, and research compilations. The vast majority occurred on or after October 7, 2023.

October 7, 2023 Attack (the single deadliest incident)

43–46 Americans killed: (US Department of Justice indictment of Hamas leaders in 2024 confirmed at least 43; some sources, including the State Department, cite 46). These numbers include dual US-Israeli citizens murdered at kibbutzim, the Nova music festival, and other sites near Gaza.

Several additional Americans were taken hostage, with some (e.g., Hersh Goldberg-Polin) died in captivity as a result of Israel’s unconstrained bombing of Gaza.

Pre-October 7 Attacks (1987–2023)

Hamas carried out or claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks during the First and Second Intifadas and subsequent periods that resulted in the deaths of roughly 15–25 Americans, based on cross-referenced State Department chronologies and victim lists (exact counts vary slightly due to dual citizenship and attribution debates). Documented American deaths include:

2002 Hebrew University bombing: (Jerusalem): 5 Americans killed.

2003 Jerusalem bus bombing: 5 Americans killed. Other notable incidents (Second Intifada era, 2000–2005): Americans killed in attacks such as the Sbarro pizzeria bombing, Park Hotel Passover bombing, and various bus bombings (e.g., Alan Beer, Malka Roth, and others).

Earlier attacks (1990s): Smaller numbers, including incidents like the 1996 Jerusalem bus bombing (3 Americans) and others. Scattered additional deaths in the 1990s–2010s from stabbings, shootings, and bombings.

HEZBOLLAH

At least 270–300+ Americans (including service members and civilians, plus some dual U.S.-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hezbollah (or its direct precursors like Islamic Jihad Organization) since its formation in 1982.

Major Incidents and Breakdown

1983 Beirut Attacks (the deadliest period):

April 18, 1983: U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut — 17 Americans killed (including 8 CIA personnel).

October 23, 1983: U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut — 241 Americans killed (220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors, 3 Army soldiers). This remains the single deadliest attack on U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima and the largest loss of American life to Hezbollah.

September 20, 1984: U.S. Embassy annex bombing in Beirut — 2 Americans killed.

Other Notable Attacks:

1980s hostage crisis and related violence: Several Americans were kidnapped and murdered, including CIA station chief William Buckley (1984–1985) and U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins (kidnapped 1988, murdered 1989).

Scattered attacks in the 1980s–2000s: Additional deaths from hijackings (e.g., TWA Flight 847 in 1985, where U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered), bombings, and operations in Iraq (Hezbollah-trained Shiite militias targeting U.S. forces post-2003).

The key take away from this data is that Hezbollah stopped attacking US targets in the 1990s and was not the face of Islamic extremism. Hezbollah focused its energy on attacking Israeli military targets.

OTHER IRANIAN PROXIES

At least 620–650+ Americans (mostly U.S. service members, plus some contractors and civilians) have been killed in attacks by Iranian proxies excluding Hamas and Hezbollah since 1979. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in Iraq during the 2003–2011 period.

Primary Figure: Iraqi Shiite Militias (2003–2011)

At least 603 U.S. troops were killed by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Defense/Pentagon assessment. These militias include groups such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), the Badr Organization, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and others.

Iran provided advanced weaponry (especially explosively formed penetrators or EFPs), training, and direction via the IRGC Quds Force. This accounted for roughly 17% of all U.S. combat deaths in Iraq during that period.

US PROXY TERRORISM AGAINST IRAN

Now I want to address the antagonism of the US towards Iran, where multiple US presidents used proxies to attack Iran. Let’s start with the case of Iraq… In 1980, the CIA, acting under a finding signed by President Jimmy Carter, began providing support to Saddam Hussein with the goal of Iraq launching an attack on Iran. Saddam attacked Iran in September 1980. When the Reagan administration took power in January 1981, the support for Iraq increased dramatically with the US supplying precursor chemicals that were used to make chemical weapons, financial aid, and classified intelligence that was routinely shared with the Iraqi General Staff. The CIA handled the task of sharing intelligence until 1986 when, as a result of the Iran/Contra revelations, Saddam refused to deal anymore with the CIA and would only accept assistance from the US military. The task of carrying US intelligence to Iraq, starting in 1987, was given to Colonel Walter Patrick Lang aka Pat. Pat, who is now deceased, was a close friend of mine for more than 20 years.

Using the same standard of blaming Iran for the actions of Hezbollah, the US merits blame for its prolific support for Saddam Hussein during the war on Iran. Estimates of Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988, also known as the First Gulf War) vary widely due to the fog of war, propaganda from both sides, and limited transparent records. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, launched the war with a surprise invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. The US provided direct, covert support to Iraq (intelligence, economic aid, and allowing allies to supply weapons) during much of the conflict.

Iranian military deaths, based on a 2013 systematic review in the Iranian Journal of Public Health (based on Iranian records), put the figure at 188,015 to 217,489 killed (roughly 70 people per day over 2,887 days of war). Iranian civilian deaths, according to Western/CIA estimates, are estimated to be 50,000–60,000 dead.

MEK

Besides using Iraq as a weapon against Iran, the US also took a page out of Saddam Hussein’s playbook. Saddam provided sanctuary and financiing, along with weapons, to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). They not only fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the war with Iran but, after the war, continued to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Coalition forces bombed MEK bases (the group had been allied with Saddam Hussein). The MEK surrendered its heavy weapons and concentrated at Camp Ashraf. n 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designated MEK members as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. US forces provided security at the camp, shielding them from Iraqi forces and preventing repatriation to Iran.

Starting around 2004–2005, the US provided clandestine support to the MEK as part of broader efforts to pressure Iran’s nuclear program and regime. This included intelligence cooperation, funding channels to dissident groups, and operational assistance. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh (reporting in The New Yorker in 2012), the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted secret training of MEK operatives at a facility in Nevada (Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site) beginning in 2005. Training covered communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics, weaponry, and other special operations skills. This reportedly continued into 2007 (or possibly later).

Funds were covertly passed to the MEK and other Iranian dissident groups for intelligence collection inside Iran and anti-regime activities. The MEK supplied intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites (e.g., Natanz) and carried out CIA sponsored operations, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This support occurred even while the MEK remained on the US FTO list, reflecting internal US government tensions (e.g., Pentagon vs. State Department).

In September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed the MEK from the FTO list, citing its renunciation of violence and cooperation on relocation. This enabled greater political and logistical support for resettling members… many eventually went to Albania where they continued to receive support and training from the CIA.

The Iranian government claims that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has killed more than 12,000 to 17,000 Iranians through terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings, and armed operations since the early 1980s. This is the most frequently cited figure in Iranian official statements, state media, and court proceedings.

Hell, MEK alone has killed 12 to 17 times more Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. The numbers are not even close.

I want you to keep these numbers in mind the next time you hear some nitwit US politician or pundit ranting about Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Hands down, the US is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iran by a fact of at least 12.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

The Cradle | April 24, 2026

The Somali government announced on 22 April that it will impose a ban on Israeli shipping passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, framing the move as a response to Tel Aviv’s recognition of the breakaway Republic of Somaliland.

The announcement was made by Somalia’s ambassador to Ethiopia and the African Union, Abdullah Warfa.

He warned that violations of his country’s sovereignty “would not be tolerated.”

“External meddling could lead to countermeasures, such as restricting access to the key maritime route of Bab al-Mandab,” Warfa added, according to Yemen Press Agency (YPA), Mehr News Agency, and IRNA.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported a day later that a cargo ship 83 nautical miles southeast of Eyl, Somalia, was approached by two small armed boats, one of which came within 600 meters of the vessel.

“Warning shots were fired and the suspicious craft returned fire. The suspicious small craft moved away and made clear of the reporting cargo ship. All crew are safe and accounted for,” the UKMTO report added.

While analysts question Somalia’s ability to enforce the ban due to limited naval capacity, they say the decision carries major political weight, potentially reshaping regional alignments and pushing Somalia toward closer coordination with Sanaa over control of the strategic chokepoint.

Late last year, Israel became the first state to recognize the breakaway Somaliland region as an independent state. Somaliland had functioned as a de facto state since declaring independence in 1991, with its own governing institutions and security structures – despite receiving no recognition from any UN member state and facing sustained opposition from Somalia.

The Somali government slammed the move along with several regional countries, including Turkiye.

Earlier this month, Somalia condemned Israel’s appointment of an ambassador to Somaliland.

The announcement comes as tensions between Tehran and Washington remain high despite the ceasefire. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Tehran has retaliated to an ongoing US blockade and seizure of its vessels – capturing two ships this week.

Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, which has threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait given its close proximity, carried out several operations during the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Ansarallah recently vowed it would resume operations if the US–Iran ceasefire collapses.

“We have more serious winning cards; the US must understand that, with the help of our Yemeni brothers, the issue of the Bab al-Mandab Strait is also under consideration and action,” said Behnam Saeedi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, earlier this month.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait is the passageway for approximately 12 percent of global oil and eight percent of worldwide liquefied natural gas (LNG).

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

Press TV – April 24, 2026

Iran says the United States has turned into a state sponsor of terrorism after President Donald Trump endorsed a Washington Post op-ed that called for the assassination of Iranian leaders.

The op-ed by Marc Thiessen suggested giving Iran’s government a 72-hour ultimatum before ending the current ceasefire, resuming attacks, and “killing the ones who don’t want a deal.”

“The United States, which once presented itself as a cradle of democracy, freedom, and human values, now appears to become a promoter of terrorism, murder, and mass violence,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote on X on Thursday.

“What should one call this, if not a profound moral failure?” he asked.

Peace talks in Islamabad fell through due to US maximalist demands, and the Islamic Republic has said it will not rejoin the diplomatic process unless Washington lifts an illegal blockade it has imposed against Iranian vessels and ports.

The United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war of terrorism against Iran on Feb. 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei along with several senior military commanders. In response, Iran’s armed forces carried out retaliatory missile and drone operations against US and Israeli military assets for more than 40 days, forcing Washington and Tel Aviv to declare a ceasefire.

Faced with Tehran’s unflinching response to the blockade, the United States has recently attempted to suggest a lack of unity among Iranian officials over peace talks.

On Thursday, President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei issued a collective response to Trump, denouncing his remarks about “divisions between extremists and moderates” in Iran as unwarranted provocations and emphasizing national unity.

Separately, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei said the remarkable unity among Iranians has disrupted the calculations of those seeking to undermine the Islamic Republic.

“Due to the remarkable unity created among compatriots, a fracture has occurred in the enemy,” the Leader wrote on X. He warned that the enemy’s media operations are targeting the minds and psyches of the people to undermine national unity and security.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe

Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2026

Prof. John Mearsheimer argues that the failure to make peace with Iran can dramatically widen the war in the Middle East, while the rift with Europe and other allies widen. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.

Elbridge Colby speech

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Russophobia, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe

No war crimes in Gaza, says Nigel Farage’s Israel tsar

Jason Pearlman is among several pro-Israel figures behind the party predicted to win big in May elections

By Martin Williams | Declassified UK | April 21, 2026

Israel has not committed a single war crime in Gaza, the head of the newly-formed Reform Friends of Israel has claimed.

Speaking to Declassified, Jason Pearlman also described the torture and abuse of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons as “the minutiae of individual claims”.

Until December, Pearlman was a media adviser to Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, who a UN commission found to have incited genocide.

Speaking from Israel, where he still lives, he told Declassified that he started a conversation with Reform about turning the party’s ‘Friends of Israel’ group into a “full-time” organisation while he was still working for Herzog.

“We did have a dinner with Nigel and some key backers,” he said. “We were able to put seed funding together.”

Pearlman refused to say who Reform Friends of Israel’s (RFOI) donors were.

But he admitted: “I’m sure some of the people who fund CFI [Conservative Friends of Israel] and LFI [Labour Friends of Israel] will also be funding RFI.”

Who is Jason Pearlman?

While Jason Pearlman remains an obscure figure in British politics, he stands to become one of the most influential figures on foreign policy, if Nigel Farage’s party wins the next election.

He has said he has “great respect” for Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

And, when his departure from Israeli politics was announced in December, he was personally thanked by President Herzog.

“Jason has helped guide the Office of the President through perhaps Israel’s most challenging times with the international press,” Herzog said.

“I am grateful for his tireless efforts to promote understanding of the work of the President of Israel and bring Israel’s story to millions around the world.”

When Declassified asked Pearlman if he believed Israel had committed any war crimes since 7 October 2023, he said: “No, of course not.”

He added: “The tragedy is that there is no nuance when it comes to discussing this conflict.”

Declassified asked if he could think of a single specific case where he would condemn IDF soldiers in Gaza. Pearlman replied: “Probably… [but] I can’t think of anything specifically off-hand.”

And when asked about the well-documented abuse and torture of Palestinian prisoners, Pearlman said: “I am sure there is some truth to all of these things…” But he appeared to dismiss such cases in favour of focusing on “the wider perspective of ‘how do we solve these issues?’”.

He said: “We are looking at how can we promote a dialogue and a narrative that advances a better region or, in this case of Reform Friends of Israel, a better relationship between the UK and the values and the UK with Israel and the values of Israel.

“And rather than getting dragged into the minutiae of individual claims – which obviously need to be dealt with; if they’re brought to you, then you obviously need to deal with them – but individual cases, I’m much more interested in promoting a dialogue which puts a very clear line between terrorism and a future.”

Pressed about why he was referring to abuse allegations as “the minutiae of individual cases”, Pearlman simply said: “I have full faith in the judicial system to prosecute, investigate and prosecute any such cases. I am not aware of any such cases being proven or prosecuted.”

Discussing the aims of Reform Friends of Israel, he pushed back at the suggestion it is a lobbying organisation, saying that he instead considered the group to be “a resource for the party”.

“[RFOI] believe fervently that the UK-Israel relationship is an important relationship,” he said, adding that it “needs heavily investing in”.

“Reform, as a party, I think we can find a lot of people who understand that importance and want to help promote it.”

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on No war crimes in Gaza, says Nigel Farage’s Israel tsar

Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran

Glenn Diesen | April 21, 2026

Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that the US peace negotiations are as fraudulent as the previous negotiations, and the US is preparing for total war with Iran.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran

Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars

Involuntary servitude is good for business

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026

In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”

On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”

National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation.

Mass Murder by Artificial Intelligence

Project Maven is an AI-driven battlefield intelligence system designed by the corporation. The Defense Department, now known as the War Department, employed Maven in 2024 for “targeting support” in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Maven incorporates the AI model Claude, built by Anthropic.

More recently, in US airstrikes against Iran, “AI systems born from Project Maven have helped identify and prioritize thousands of targets, accelerating intelligence analysis and operational planning,” explains the Center for a New American Security, a military think tank founded by Michèle Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense with links to Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. She was the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy.

Maven was reportedly used to shorten the “kill chain” during Israel’s invasion of Gaza. “I am proud that we are supporting Israel in every way we can,” CEO Karp exclaimed. Following the Gaza al-Aqsa Flood in October, 2023, Palantir “provided Israel with multiple AI-powered data analytics tools for military and intelligence purposes,” notes the American Friends Service Committee. The corporation has a “strategic partnership” with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to assist the Zionist state and its “war effort” against Palestinian resistance to Israeli military occupation, an armed struggle recognized under international law.

“As the genocide in Gaza advances, attention is turning to the companies whose technologies may be facilitating Israel’s daily atrocities, with US-based Palantir Technologies among them,” reports the Business and Human Rights Center. “While the International Criminal Court (ICC) is stepping in to address genocide accusations, the tech barons who design and supply the tools of warfare remain largely unchallenged.”

Another Israeli AI-based targeting system, Lavender, ostensibly developed by the IDF’s Unit 8200, is said to be a Palantir project. Palantir rejected this assertion in a letter sent to Francesca Albanese, the sanctioned United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. In the letter, Palantir stressed it “stands in solidarity with Israel in response to the horrific attacks on 7 October, 2023. Our work in Israel long predates the 7 October attacks and is in line with our global commitment to U.S. allies and liberal democracies. We proudly support our partners in Israel across a multitude of mission sets, programs, and contexts.”

Israel utilized Palantir in its September 2024 attacks in Lebanon, employing exploding electronic pagers that resulted in numerous fatalities and injuries, writes AFSC’s Investigate. In addition to its collaboration with the Israeli military, Palantir also provides the Gaza Civil-Military Coordination Center with its services. This center is located at the US military compound in Kiryat Gat, which was established in October 2025 to implement the Trump administration’s plan for Gaza. Iran targeted Kiryat Gat in March, 2026.

Maven, incorporating Anthropic’s Claude, was used to target the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, in southern Iran, killing 180 people, mostly young girls. President Trump praised Palantir Technologies, saying the company “has proven to have great war-fighting capabilities and equipment. Just ask our enemies,” apparently including children.

“Creepy CEO” Advocates Involuntary Servitude in “Service to the West”

“Alex Karp, the creepy CEO of creepy defense contractor Palantir, just can’t stop talking about killing people,” Lucas Ropek writes for Gizmodo. “During a recent call with investors, the billionaire let it slip that he doesn’t mind a little bloodshed, just so long as the money keeps pouring in.”

“Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies and on occasion kill them,” Karp said, with a smile on his face. The CEO added that he was very proud of the work his firm is doing and that he felt it was good for America. “I’m very happy to have you along for the journey,” he said. “We are crushing it. We are dedicating our company to the service of the West, and the United States of America, and we’re super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.”

For Karp, “service to the West” includes conscription, that is to say involuntary servitude and the possibility of a violent and horrific death for an untold number of men and women drafted to fight the forever wars envisioned by the billionaire elite, including those within the “libertarian” tech sector.

However, forcing an individual against his or her will to kill and possibly be killed for the sake of the state (or foreign states, such as Israel), and in accordance with a “social contract” that demands submission and obedience, is not libertarian. In the case of Palantir, it is more accurately described as “techno-fascism,” an alliance between Silicon Valley and the state. Contrary to libertarian principles advocating against government intervention, leading tech companies frequently advocate for regulations that favor established AI companies benefiting from government funding and contracts.

Palantir, named after the “seeing stones” from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, may be characterized as a “merchant of death,” a term prominent in the 1930s regarding WWI profiteering. Alex Karp may be compared to Basil Zaharoff, a Greek arms dealer and industrialist, one of the wealthiest men of his time. Unlike Zaharoff, Karp is not selling rifles or munitions, he is selling something far worse—the ability, through artificial intelligence, to murder thousands, if not millions of people with the speed and efficiency of computer technology.

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars

Israel’s war obsession and the urgency of Palestinian leverage

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 20, 2026

It is tempting to argue that Israel’s new military doctrine is predicated on perpetual war—but the reality is more complex.

Not that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would object to such an arrangement. On the contrary, his relentless drive for military escalation suggests precisely that. After all, his openly declared quest for a “greater Israel” would require exactly this kind of permanent militarism—endless expansion and sustained regional destruction.

However, Israel cannot sustain an open-ended fight on multiple fronts indefinitely.

Israeli officials boast about fighting on “seven fronts,” but many of these are, in military terms, largely imaginary rather than sustained battlefields.

The real wars, however, are entirely of Israel’s making: from the genocide in Gaza to its unprovoked regional wars.

Still, that fact should not blind us to another reality: in the lead-up to the war on Iran, and in the escalation against Lebanon, there was near-total consensus among Jewish Israelis. An Israel Democracy Institute survey conducted on March 2–3 found that 93% of Jewish Israelis supported the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran. Support cut across all political camps.

The same enthusiasm for war accompanied the Gaza genocide and the various wars and escalations in Lebanon.

Even Yair Lapid—so often and so falsely marketed abroad as a “dove”—fully backed these wars, admitting after the Iran ceasefire that Israel had entered them with “rare consensus” and that he supported them “from the very first moment.”

His repeated criticisms, like those of other Israeli politicians, are not of the war but of Netanyahu’s failure to deliver a strategic outcome.

And this is the crucial distinction. Israelis mostly support the wars, but many no longer trust Netanyahu to translate destruction into strategic victory. By mid-April, 92% of Jewish Israelis gave the army high marks for its management of the Iran war, but only 38% gave high ratings to the government.

In other words, the public still believes in war but increasingly doubts the leadership waging it.

That distinction may not matter much to us, since the outcome remains mass death, devastation, and colonial violence. But in Israel’s own military and strategic calculations, it matters enormously. Its wars have historically followed a familiar model: crush resistance, impose military and political domination, and translate battlefield violence into colonial expansion.

Netanyahu delivered none of that.

This is why the uproar in Israel over the April 16 Lebanon ceasefire has been so fierce, and why the fears surrounding a possible stalemate with Iran run even deeper.

The Lebanon ceasefire clearly did not secure one of Israel’s central declared aims: the disarmament of Hezbollah. Israel kept troops in southern Lebanon, but the agreement halted offensive operations and fell far short of the promised “total victory.”

For many in Israel, any outcome that falls short of total victory is immediately read as defeat. One northern Israeli regional leader, Eyal Shtern, captured that mood with brutal clarity when he reacted to the Lebanon ceasefire by asking how Israel had gone “from absolute victory to total surrender,” in remarks reported by CNN.

That is the real crisis now confronting Israel: not that it has discovered the limits of permanent war, but that it has once again discovered that exterminatory violence does not automatically produce political victory.

While Iran possesses political leverage that could allow for a long-term, or even permanent, truce, Lebanon and Syria remain in a far more vulnerable position. However, no one is in a more precarious condition than the Palestinians, particularly those in Gaza.

Unlike others who retain some political margin and space to maneuver, Palestinians live under Israeli occupation, apartheid, and siege. Gaza, in particular, has been reduced to a sealed enclave of devastation.

Its hermetic siege has produced one of the most horrific humanitarian catastrophes in modern history: an entire population surviving on polluted water, with infrastructure destroyed, food critically scarce, and thousands still buried beneath the rubble.

Aside from their legendary steadfastness—sumud—Palestinians operate under severe constraints in their ability to impose conditions on Israel, particularly as it continues to receive unconditional support from the United States and its Western allies. Yet their resilience, collective action, and enduring presence remain powerful forms of leverage that cannot be easily contained.

Netanyahu—and those who will come after him—will always find in Palestine a space in which war can be waged continuously and at relatively low cost to Israel itself.

Unlike other battlefields, where war becomes politically, militarily, and economically unsustainable, Israel has turned its occupation of Palestine into a permanent battlefield.

Even if Netanyahu, now politically diminished and aging, exits the political scene, the underlying paradigm will remain intact. Future Israeli leaders will continue to wage war on Palestine, not despite its costs, but because of its perceived benefits: it is financially subsidized, colonially advantageous, and politically sustainable within Israel’s current structure.

To break this paradigm, Palestinians must generate leverage—real leverage. This cannot come from futile negotiations or appeals to long-ignored international law. It can only emerge from sustained collective resistance to colonialism, reinforced by meaningful support from Arab and Muslim states and genuine international allies, and amplified by global solidarity capable of exerting real pressure on Israel and, crucially, on its principal benefactors.

For now, Netanyahu continues his wars because he has no answer to his own strategic failures. Here, escalation is not a strength; it is the last refuge of a leadership that cannot deliver victory.

This, however, also reveals something else: Israel is entering a moment of unprecedented vulnerability.

That vulnerability must be exposed—clearly, consistently, and urgently—by all those who seek an end to these senseless wars, an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and a path toward justice that has been denied for far too long.

April 20, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s war obsession and the urgency of Palestinian leverage

Israel’s Expansion Means An Unraveling of Middle East Stability

By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | April 20, 2026

The recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran may have paused the most intense phase of direct military confrontation, but it has done nothing to resolve the deeper questions about Middle Eastern stability that have emerged since October 7, 2023. Behind the temporary calm lies a profound transformation in Israeli strategic thinking, one that has moved from containment to active regional reorganization.

Israel is not a normal democracy that abides by the rule of law or legal restraint. It is very much an expansionist state with bold ambitions and a demonstrated willingness to break international law. The events of the past two years have made this reality impossible to ignore.

The “Greater Israel” project, a term that has carried two primary meanings over the decades, has moved from the ideological fringe into the governing coalition of Israeli politics. In its narrower, post-1967 usage, “Greater Israel” referred to Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. In its maximalist, biblicist form, drawn from Genesis 15:18, it invokes the territory stretching “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates,” a vast area encompassing parts of modern Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and potentially reaching into Iraq.

Once confined to religious nationalists and settler ideologues, this expansionist vision now sits at the cabinet table. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for Israel to “expand to Damascus,” displayed a map showing Jordan as part of Israel at a 2023 speech in Paris, and settler leader Daniella Weiss has publicly stated that “the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile.”

Netanyahu’s coalition agreement explicitly declares that “Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the Land of Israel” and that “the government will promote and develop settlements in all parts of the Land of Israel.” As Al Jazeera reported in February 2026, figures like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, once regarded as outside the mainstream, “are now in government, reflecting a wider radicalisation within Israeli society itself.”

Perhaps most striking is that this rhetoric is no longer confined to the religious right. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, an ostensibly secular figure, stated in February 2026 that he supports “anything that will allow the Jews a large, broad, strong land,” adding that “the borders are the borders of the Bible.” When even centrist politicians invoke biblical mandates to justify territorial expansion, the ideological transformation becomes undeniable.

The conflict with Hezbollah has catalyzed a significant shift in Israeli policy regarding Lebanon’s territorial integrity. The previous doctrine of containing Hezbollah has given way to explicit calls from senior Israeli officials for the permanent occupation and annexation of territory up to the Litani River, approximately thirty kilometers north of the current border.

Smotrich has repeatedly asserted that the military campaign in Lebanon must result in a “change of Israel’s borders.” On March 23, 2026, he told an Israeli radio program that the campaign “needs to end with a different reality entirely, both with the Hezbollah decision but also with the change of Israel’s borders.” He then declared at a Knesset faction meeting that “the Litani must be our new border with the state of Lebanon, just like the Yellow Line in Gaza and like the buffer zone and peak of the Hermon in Syria,” adding, “I say here definitively, in every room and in every discussion, too.” Al Jazeera reported that these were “the most explicit” statements by a senior Israeli official on seizing Lebanese territory since the current military operations began.

Defense Minister Israel Katz has adopted a complementary posture. He announced at the end of March that the IDF will maintain “security control over the entire area up to the Litani River” and that “hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon who evacuated northward will not return south of the Litani River until security for the residents of the north is ensured.”

The shift toward annexation is bolstered by the emergence of Uri Tzafon, a movement founded in late March 2024 that advocates for the establishment of Jewish civilian settlements in southern Lebanon. The group, whose name means “awaken, O North” in Hebrew, has organized conferences focused on what it describes as the “occupation of the territory and settlement” of southern Lebanon. Its leaders have invoked conquest, expulsion, and settlement as the necessary sequence for transforming the region.

Senior rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh wrote in a public letter that “after the conquest and expulsion of the hostile population, a Jewish settlement must be established, thus completing the victory.” Eliyahu Ben Asher, a founding member of Uri Tzafon, told Jewish Currents that “the Israeli-Lebanese border is a ridiculous colonial border,” building on his earlier assertion that “what is called ‘southern Lebanon’ is really and truly simply the northern Galilee.”

In mid-2024, the group used drones and balloons to drop eviction notices on Lebanese border towns, informing residents that “they are in the Land of Israel, which belongs to the Jewish people, and that they are required to evacuate immediately,” according to a post the group made on its Telegram channel. In February 2026, dozens of Uri Tzafon activists crossed the border fence near the Lebanese town of Yaroun and planted trees inside Lebanese territory in what the group called a “moral and historical step.” The IDF detained two individuals and called the crossing “a serious criminal offense.” By April 2026, Jewish Currents reported that Uri Tzafon’s once-marginal ideas had gained “broad governmental and public support,” with the movement’s leaders now setting their sights on territory beyond the Litani, toward the Zaharani River, another dozen miles deeper into Lebanon.

The pursuit of “Greater Israel” and the annexation of buffer zones draw on a lineage of Israeli strategic thought that advocates for the fragmentation of rival Arab states. This lineage includes the 1982 Yinon Plan, an article published in the Hebrew journal Kivunim (“Directions”) and authored by Oded Yinon, who had served as a senior official in the Israeli Foreign Ministry and as a journalist for The Jerusalem Post. Yinon argued that the borders drawn by colonial powers were inherently unstable and that Israel’s security would be best served by what he called the “dissolution of the military capabilities of Arab states east of Israel.” He specifically proposed that Iraq should be divided into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite entities, and that Syria and Lebanon should similarly fragment along sectarian lines.

The deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey represents one of the most significant diplomatic casualties of the post-October 7 era. Israeli leadership has designated Turkey not merely as a problematic partner but as a strategic adversary whose regional ambitions require a coordinated counter-alliance.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz spearheaded this posture with highly personalized and escalatory rhetoric. Following Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s July 28, 2024, speech suggesting that his country might intervene in Israel “just as we entered Karabakh, just as we entered Libya,” Katz responded on X that Erdoğan was “following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein” and that he “should remember what happened there and how it ended,” posting a photograph of Erdoğan alongside the former Iraqi dictator. Katz also instructed Israeli diplomats to “urgently dialogue with all NATO members” to push for Turkey’s condemnation and expulsion from the alliance, calling Turkey “a country which hosts the Hamas headquarters” and describing it as part of “the Iranian axis of evil.”

Beyond rhetoric, Netanyahu has articulated a vision for a regional counter-alliance. On February 23, 2026, ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel, Netanyahu announced a proposed “hexagon of alliances” that would include Israel, India, Greece, and Cyprus, along with unnamed Arab, African, and Asian states. He stated that the initiative was designed to counter “the radical axes, both the radical Shia axis, which we have struck very hard, and the emerging radical Sunni axis.” While Netanyahu did not explicitly name Turkey as leading the Sunni axis, Israeli political discourse and analysts have pointed to Turkey under Erdoğan as the primary concern, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recently describing Turkey as “the new Iran.”

The shifts in Israeli rhetoric and doctrine since October 7 have had profound implications for its international standing. The “Greater Israel” rhetoric and the annexation of southern Lebanon have led to what observers describe as a “dark new phase” in Israel’s relations with the international community. Long-standing partners, including the United Kingdom, have suspended trade negotiations and imposed sanctions on individuals involved in the settler movement, citing the strident rhetoric of Israeli ministers as a primary cause.

The military campaign against Iran in early 2026 and the subsequent Iranian retaliation through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered the world’s biggest oil supply disruption since the 1970s. The reclassification of the Strait as a maximum war-risk zone led to insurance premiums surging by over 1,000% contributing to a global fuel crisis and massive volatility in financial markets. Within Israel, the economic damage from the multi-front war has been estimated at over $11.5 billion.

As Israel moves to dismantle the borders of the twentieth century, the resulting shockwaves are rattling both regional alliances and global energy markets. The Jewish state’s transformation into an expansionist power has turned former partners into strategic adversaries, making the recent ceasefire feel like a brief intermission in a much larger drama. In this new Middle East, the map is being redrawn by force, and the cost of that ink is being felt from the Litani River to the Strait of Hormuz.

April 20, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Israel’s Expansion Means An Unraveling of Middle East Stability

Why has Israel’s Security Doctrine begun targeting Turkey?

The logic of prevention

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 20, 2026

To understand why Turkey has gradually come to be viewed as a strategic concern for Israel, we must start with a methodological premise: in the Middle East, security doctrines are not formulated solely in response to immediate threats, but primarily in anticipation of future power dynamics. From this perspective, security does not equate to the mere defense of borders, but rather to the ability to prevent the emergence of regional actors capable of limiting Israel’s freedom of action or altering existing strategic balances.

Turkey is today viewed by a segment of the Israeli discourse not simply as a complex neighbor, but as a rising regional power with autonomous ambitions. This development is significant because, within the logic of Israeli security, an actor does not necessarily become a threat only when it displays direct hostility; it can also become one when it acquires sufficient military capabilities, geopolitical influence, and strategic depth to constrain Israel’s operational margin.

Israeli security doctrine has historically been associated with a preventive approach, grounded in the need to neutralize threats before they mature into a fully hostile form. This framework, applied over time to various theaters and adversaries, tends to view the growth in power of other actors as a potential long-term risk, even when it does not yet translate into a direct and immediate threat.

In this context, the issue is not merely what an actor does in the present, but what it might do in the future if it further strengthened its capabilities. For Israel, therefore, strategic analysis includes not only an assessment of intentions but also of potential. This is why attention focuses on states or organizations capable of influencing the regional balance of power, supporting alternative alliances, or limiting Israeli military superiority.

Turkey increasingly fits into this framework because it combines three key elements: a decisive geographical position, a sophisticated military apparatus, and an increasingly assertive foreign policy. Its ability to operate simultaneously in the Levant, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Caucasus makes it a geopolitical actor that cannot easily be reduced to a single bilateral dimension.

From Iran to Turkey

For years, Iran has represented the primary paradigm of strategic threat to Israel. However, Turkey’s growing centrality in Israeli discourse does not indicate a straightforward replacement, but rather an extension of the same logic of containment toward another regional actor perceived as capable of building systemic autonomy.

The statement attributed to Naftali Bennett—according to which a “new Turkish threat” is emerging and Israel should act simultaneously against Tehran and Ankara—is significant not so much for its rhetorical value as because it signals the inclusion of Turkey in a security lexicon that until recently was reserved for other regional adversaries. Similarly, the interpretation put forward by Israeli analytical and media circles emphasizes the need not to underestimate Turkey’s potential, especially as Ankara strengthens its military capabilities and consolidates alternative regional partnerships.

The most important shift is therefore conceptual: Turkey is no longer viewed merely for its immediate moves, but as a potential structural factor in the transformation of the regional order. In this light, Israeli-Turkish tensions are not a diplomatic incident, but a reflection of a broader competition for regional hegemony.

The eastern Mediterranean and Syria

One of the main theaters of this rivalry is the Eastern Mediterranean. Here, Israel has progressively strengthened its cooperation with Greece and Cyprus, contributing to the formation of a security axis that also addresses concerns stemming from Turkish activism in the region. The energy issue, control of maritime routes, and the delimitation of exclusive economic zones have transformed the Eastern Mediterranean into a space of strategic competition with high political stakes.

Syria, however, remains the most sensitive issue. Following the collapse of the Assad government in December 2024, the dynamics of influence within the country rapidly shifted, and the overlap between Turkish and Israeli operations has heightened the risk of miscalculation. On the one hand, Ankara has sought to consolidate its presence and prevent the emergence of hostile entities along its southern border; on the other, Israel has pursued the need to preserve freedom of air action and the ability to strike infrastructure deemed hostile.

In this scenario, the problem is not merely the divergence between two states, but the collision between two incompatible security projects. Turkey aims for a strategic depth that allows it to project stability and influence; Israel, by contrast, tends to prefer a fragmented surrounding environment, devoid of powers capable of consolidating to the point of influencing its operational space.

Turkey’s transformation into an object of Israeli strategic attention also depends on its military evolution. The modernization of the Turkish armed forces, the development of missile systems, the extensive use of drones, and the desire to acquire autonomous regional projection capabilities reinforce the perception of Ankara as a revisionist power or, at the very least, as an actor not aligned with Israeli interests.

In terms of perception, the decisive point is that Turkey is no longer viewed merely as a difficult interlocutor or an ambiguous NATO ally, but as a power that could influence the security architecture of the Levant and the Eastern Mediterranean. This explains why Israeli circles speak of a “new Turkish threat” and why political discourse has begun to place Ankara in a category close to the more established one reserved for Iran.

This perception is also fueled by Turkey’s stance on the Palestinian issue and its relations with Islamist or anti-Israeli actors. Strategically, this reinforces the idea that Turkey is not merely a regional mediator but an actor capable of forming alternative coalitions and providing political support to forces hostile to Israel.

Normalization of the confrontation

One of the most significant aspects of the current dynamic is the normalization of conflict-laden language. When a threat is repeatedly invoked by former prime ministers, analysts, the media, and strategic circles, it ceases to be a remote possibility and becomes a mentally viable option in public discourse. This does not mean that conflict is inevitable, but that the discursive and psychological conditions are being established that make a future escalation plausible.

The logic is well-known in the history of international relations: before a clash manifests itself militarily, it takes root in security discourse, in preventive doctrines, and in representations of the adversary. Speaking of a “new threat” or the “need to act simultaneously” on two fronts helps redefine the cognitive framework within which political elites interpret available options.

In this sense, the Turkish case is particularly significant because it signals a shift from diplomatic rivalry to a deeper strategic competition. Turkey is not merely criticized for certain foreign policy decisions; it is increasingly treated as a potential structural obstacle to Israeli security.

The reason why Israeli security doctrine has begun to target Turkey must therefore be sought in a combination of structural factors: Turkish geopolitical autonomy, military buildup, competition in the Eastern Mediterranean, overlapping interests in Syria, and the growing political distance between Ankara and Tel Aviv. The problem, from Israel’s perspective, is not merely what Turkey is today, but what it could become if it succeeds in consolidating a regional sphere of influence consistent with its own interests.

In this context, Israel appears to be applying to Turkey the same preventive logic it has already employed with other actors: to contain at an early stage what might, in the future, reduce Israel’s freedom of action or challenge its strategic superiority. The issue, therefore, is not merely bilateral but concerns the entire Middle Eastern power architecture.

For this reason, interpreting the Israeli-Turkish rivalry as a simple contingent dispute would be misleading. Instead, it must be understood as an expression of a broader transformation of the regional order, in which states with autonomous ambitions and growing capabilities are viewed as potential systemic threats. It is within this logic that Turkey has entered Israel’s strategic radar.

April 20, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Why has Israel’s Security Doctrine begun targeting Turkey?

The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 18, 2026

… Earlier this month, Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich declared an official start to the Greater Israel project. He included Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine in the project. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionists have strived to weaken neighboring states, dismantle their military capacity, and worked to reshape the balance of power in West Asia. The original plan called for occupying and ethnically cleansing the entirety of Palestine, all of Jordan, south Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, and northern Saudi Arabia.

The Nazis had a similar plan during their occupation of Europe in the Second World War. It was called the “Greater Germanic Reich” (Großgermanisches Reich). In the autumn of 1933, Adolf Hitler made plans to annex territories including Bohemia, parts of western Poland, and Austria to Germany. He also aimed to create satellite or puppet states that would lack independent economies or policies. Nazi racial theories classified the Germanic peoples of Europe as part of a racially superior Nordic subset within the broader Aryan race, which they considered to be the sole true bearers of civilized culture.

In Deuteronomy, the Jewish God chooses Israel to be his holy (kadosh) and treasured (segulah) people. Deuteronomy 14:2 states God has chosen the Jews “to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” According to the Torah, “Eretz Israel” (“Land of Israel” in Hebrew), now defined as “Greater Israel,” was “given” to the “children of Abraham” and serves as the basis for “a merger of religious fundamentalism and modern political ethno-nationalism, whereby ancient texts are used to justify a modern military expansionist state.” In regard to Lebanon, the Zionists believe Greater Israel extends up to the Sidon and Litani rivers.

According to Amichai Friedman, a rabbi in the Israeli Army, “This land is ours, the whole land, including Gaza, including Lebanon,” while Daniella Weiss, a Jewish ethnonationalist and former mayor of Kedumim, called for the “invasion of Lebanon” immediately after the war in Gaza. Lebanon-born Israeli journalist Edy Cohen posted to social media that areas of Lebanon, including Faraya and Kesrouan, will also suffer the fate of Gaza, that is to say ethnic cleansing, massacres, and wholesale theft of land, homes (those not demolished), and infrastructure. … Full article

April 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war

US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide

Arab Center Washington DC | April 10, 2026

Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the #IranWar, the #Gaza genocide, and the US policy toward the Middle East.

His remarks were the keynote address for Arab Center’s Eleventh Annual Conference.

John J. Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar who serves as the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and is the author of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, among other works.

April 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »