Pakistan « Aletho News

Obama Paved the Way for Trump’s Venezuelan Killings

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | December 3, 2025

The Trump administration’s killings of scores of Venezuelans are justifiably provoking outrage. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently proclaimed, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.” Donald Trump and Hegseth are cashing a blank check for carnage that was written years earlier by President Barack Obama.

In his 2017 farewell address, Obama boasted, “We have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists.” Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, helping fuel anti–U.S. backlashes in several nations.

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, “We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.” Many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 expected a seachange in Washington. However, from his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when drones slaughtered wedding parties or other innocents.

On February 3, 2010, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stunned Washington by announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing. Blair revealed to a congressional committee the new standard for extrajudicial killings:

“Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has—is a threat to other Americans. We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

But “involved” is a vague standard—as is “action that threatens Americans.” Blair stated that “if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” Permission from who?

Obama’s first high-profile American target was Anwar Awlaki, a cleric born in New Mexico. After the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was showcased as a model moderate Muslim. The New York Times noted that Awlaki “gave interviews to the national news media, preached at the Capitol in Washington and attended a breakfast with Pentagon officials.” He became more radical after he concluded that the Geoge W. Bush administration’s Global War on Terror was actually a war on Islam. After the FBI sought to squeeze him into becoming an informant against other Muslims, Awlaki fled the country. He arrived in Yemen and was arrested and reportedly tortured at the behest of the U.S. government. After he was released from prison eighteen months later, his attitude had worsened and his sermons became more bloodthirsty.

After the Obama administration announced plans to kill Awlaki, his father hired a lawyer to file a challenge in federal court. The ACLU joined the lawsuit, seeking to compel the government “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.” The Obama administration labeled the entire case a “State Secret.” This meant that the administration did not even have to explain why federal law no longer constrained its killings. The administration could have indicted Awlaki on numerous charges but it did not want to provide him any traction in federal court.

In September 2010, The New York Times reported that “there is widespread agreement among the administration’s legal team that it is lawful for President Obama to authorize the killing of someone like Mr. Awlaki.” It was comforting to know that top political appointees concurred that Obama could justifiably kill Americans. But that was the same “legal standard” the Bush team used to justify torture.

The Obama administration asserted a right to kill U.S. citizens without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked men to legally object. In November 2010, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter announced in federal court that no judge had legal authority to be “looking over the shoulder” of Obama’s targeted killing. The letter declared that the program involves “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”

The following month, federal judge John Bates dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit because “there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.” Bates declared that targeted killing was a “political question” outside the court’s jurisdiction. His deference was stunning: no judge had ever presumed that killing Americans was simply another “political question.” The Obama administration’s position “would allow the executive unreviewable authority to target and kill any U.S. citizen it deems a suspect of terrorism anywhere,” according to Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriae.

On September 30, 2011, a U.S. drone attack killed Awlaki along with another American citizen, Samir Khan, who was editing an online Al Qaeda magazine. Obama bragged about the lethal operation at a military base later that day. A few days later, administration officials gave a New York Times reporter extracts, a peek at the fifty-page secret Justice Department memo. The Times noted, “The secret document provided the justification for [killing Awlaki] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.” The legal case for killing Awlaki was so airtight that it did not even need to be disclosed to the American public.

Two weeks after killing Awlaki, Obama authorized a drone attack that killed his son and six other people as they sat at an outdoor café in Yemen. Anonymous administration officials quickly assured the media that Abdulrahman Awlaki was a 21-year-old Al Qaeda fighter and thus fair game. Four days later, The Washington Post published a birth certificate proving that Awlaki’s son was only 16-years old and had been born in Denver. Nor did the boy have any connection with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s former White House press secretary and a top advisor for Obama’s reelection campaign, later shrugged that the 16-year-old should have had “a far more responsible father.”

Regardless of that boy’s killing, the media often portrayed Obama and his drones as infallible. A Washington Post poll a few months later revealed that 83% of Americans approved of Obama’s drone killing policy. It made almost no difference whether the suspected terrorists were American citizens; 79% of respondents approved of preemptively killing their fellow countrymen, no judicial niceties required. The Post noted that “77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.” The poll results were largely an echo of official propaganda. Most folks “knew” only what the government wanted them to hear regarding drones. Thanks to pervasive secrecy, top government officials could kill who they chose and say what they pleased. The fact that the federal government had failed to substantiate more than 90% of its terrorist accusations since 9/11 was irrelevant since the president was omniscient.

On March 6, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech on targeted killings to a college audience, declared, “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process.” TV comedian Stephen Colbert mocked Holder, quipping “Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do.” One purpose of due process is to allow evidence to be critically examined. But there was no opportunity to debunk statements from anonymous White House officials. For the Obama administration, “due process” meant little more than reciting certain phrases in secret memos prior to executions.

Holder declared that the drone attacks “are not [assassinations], and the use of that loaded term is misplaced; assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense.” Any termination secretly approved by the president or his top advisers was automatically a “lawful killing.” Holder reassured Americans that Congress was overseeing the targeted killing program. But no one on Capitol Hill demanded a hearing or investigation after U.S. drones killed American citizens in Yemen. The prevailing attitude was exemplified by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY):

“Drones aren’t evil, people are evil. We are a force of good and we are using those drones to carry out the policy of righteousness and goodness.”

Obama told White House aides that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” In April 2012, The New York Times was granted access for a laudatory inside look at “Terror Tuesday” meetings in the White House:

“Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.”

It was a PowerPoint death parade. The Times stressed that Obama personally selected who to kill next:

“The control he exercises also appears to reflect Mr. Obama’s striking self-confidence: he believes, according to several people who have worked closely with him, that his own judgment should be brought to bear on strikes.”

Commenting on the Times’ revelations, author Tom Engelhardt observed, “We are surely at a new stage in the history of the imperial presidency when a president (or his election team) assembles his aides, advisors and associates to foster a story that’s meant to broadcast the group’s collective pride in the new position of assassin-in-chief.”

On May 23, 2013, Obama, in a speech on his targeted killing program at the National Defense University in Washington, told his fellow Americans that “we know a price must be paid for freedom”—such as permitting the president untrammeled authority to kill threats to freedom. The president declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set.”

Since almost all the data on victims was confidential, it was tricky to prove otherwise. But NBC News acquired classified documents revealing that the CIA was often clueless about who it was killing. NBC noted, “Even while admitting that the identities of many killed by drones were not known, the CIA documents asserted that all those dead were enemy combatants. The logic is twisted: If we kill you, then you were an enemy combatant.” Killings are also exonerated by counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants… unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” And U.S. bureaucrats have no incentive to track down evidence exposing their fatal errors. The New York Times revealed that U.S. “counterterrorism officials insist… people in an area of known terrorist activity… are probably up to no good.” The “probably up to no good” standard absolved almost any drone killing within thousands of square miles in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Daniel Hale, a former Air Force intelligence analyst, leaked information revealing that nearly 90% of people who were killed in drone strikes were not the intended targets. Joe Biden’s Justice Department responded by coercing Hale into pleading guilty to “retention and transmission of national security information,” and he was sent to prison in 2021.

Sovereign immunity entitles presidents to kill with impunity. Or at least that is what presidents have presumed for most of the past century. If the Trump administration can establish a prerogative to preemptively kill anyone suspected of transporting illicit narcotics, millions of Americans could be in the federal cross-hairs. But the Trump administration is already having trouble preserving total secrecy thanks to controversies over who ordered alleged war crimes. Will Trump’s anti-drug carnage end up torpedoing his beloved Secretary of War Hegseth and his own credibility with Congress, the judiciary, and hundreds of millions of Americans who do not view White House statements as divine revelations handed down from Mt. Sinai?

December 3, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Afghanistan, CIA, Human rights, Obama, Pakistan, Somalia, United States, Yemen | Leave a comment

Imran Khan wasn’t overthrown — Pakistan was

Former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan [ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images]

By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 30, 2025

From the barracks of Rawalpindi to the halls of Washington, a sordid alliance stalks the republic of Pakistan: a military caste addicted to power, a civilian class cowed into servitude, and a foreign patron ever ready to pull the leash. What unfolds is less a grand strategy than a tragicomedy: generals trading sovereignty for sinecures, soldiers harbouring contempt for their officers, and a once-promising democratic movement crushed under the twin weights of imperial ambition and martial tutelage.

At the summit of Pakistan’s national hierarchy sits the uniformed elite—high-command officers whose benefit resides not in defending the people, but in ensuring their own station remains unchallenged. The vast majority of junior officers and ordinary soldiers know the drill: they march at a command, live off state hand-outs, yet watch in silence as their rulers gamble everything in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Beneath their boots pulses a latent contempt: not for the institution of soldiering, but for the generals who confuse war-games with governance, who mistake subservience for sovereignty. They know the charade: a military that catalogues enemies abroad yet fails its citizens at home; a top brass more at ease with arms deals and alliances than with schools or clinics.

Meanwhile, in Washington and its allied capitals, they observe the last great outsourcing of empire. The US sees Pakistan not as an independent partner, but as a subcontractor—an air-strip here, a drone base there, a pliant nuclear state with acceptable risks. When Imran Khan—in office—moved, albeit imperfectly, toward a new Pakistan: one marked by social justice, independent foreign policy, and friendship with all nations, he ran head-first into this alliance. He derailed the pat-scripts: refused US basing rights, challenged embassy diktats, and dared to recast Kashmir and Palestine not as trophies of patronage but as tests of principle. His mistake was not corruption—it was defiance. And the consequence was swift: a regime-change operation dressed in parliamentary garb, a military and intelligence complex that salivated at the smell of capitulation, and a Washington that nodded, funded and quietly applauded.

From here the narrative spirals into farce. Pakistan’s flag-waving elite collect defence pacts as one might souvenirs—each a badge of fidelity to the imperial order, each certifying that the country’s violent and unjust alignments will continue unimpeded. The generals embrace those pacts not because they secure Pakistan—they don’t—but because they secure the elite’s privilege: a share of the deals, a veneer of patriotism, a shield against accountability. And while their generals trade in hardware and geopolitics, the cries of the oppressed vanish into night: Pashtun civilians bombed under the guise of “counter-terror,” Afghan refugees reviled as villains by a state that once nurtured their tormentors.

Yes, nuclear-armed Pakistan could not muster a single bullet for Gaza. It did not send a protection force. It does not lobby the United Nations for justice, despite the occasional meaningless rhetoric. Instead, it signs on to the next big defence contract, brushes its hands of the Palestinian plight, and turns its back on the ideal of Muslim solidarity. What kind of state is this that boasts nuclear weapons yet lacks the moral will to send aid—or more than a token gesture—to fellow victims of aggression? A state that lectures others on terrorism while shelling its own Pashtun tribes. A state so short on legitimacy it must invoke the bogeyman of the Afghan refugee, call entire populations “terrorists,” then crush any dissent with tanks and tear-gas.

Speaking of dissent—when Imran Khan’s movement rose, the state responded with idylls of terror. Cadres of young activists, women, students, social justice advocates—whether Karachi or Khyber—found themselves in dungeons sanctioned by a military-political complex. The hearings were stacked, the charges manufactured, the message simple: move for justice and you move into our sights. The generals clapped their hands, Washington twisted the strings, and the civilian face of Pakistan trembled. The officer class may nominally obey the high command—but in quiet mess halls and among soldiers’ wives the whispers of outrage gather: “Why are we policing our own people? Why is Urdu-speaking Karachi the victim of our operations? Why do we trespass into forests and valleys and call them terror zones?”

In the borderlands the farce becomes terrifyingly concrete. The army, having once nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan to secure “strategic depth,” now bombs them—and blames them for terrorism. In this brain-twist of national strategy, the creator is recast as the adversary, the patron transformed into the provoked. The Pashtun civilian watches as homes are razed near the Durand Line, as refugees arrive on Pakistani soil bearing the costs of wars Pakistan helped manufacture, and as the generals portray them as fifth-column terrorists. The irony would be comical were it not so brutal.

And what of Kashmir? In the so-called “free” Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, huge anti-government demonstrations rage. A region whose inhabitants yearn for dignity, not just slogans. Under Imran Khan, new polling suggested the unthinkable: Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, despite seeing the abysmal conditions in Azad Kashmir, began to seriously consider joining Pakistan—not as another occupier but as a fortress of self-determination. The generals would rather you not notice that: they prefer the pre-scripted dispute, the perpetual conflict, the tortured rhetoric of “we stand with Kashmir” while the state stands with its own survival. The polls are telling: if Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is failing, the state itself is structurally unhealthy.

To be sure, the Pakistan military remains an institution of extraordinary capability. But capability is not legitimacy; nor is turf-control a foundation for national purpose. The generals continue to conflate war-power with nation-power, forgetting that true power is fostered by schools, by hospitals, by trust in institutions—and by consent, not coercion. And when a regime trades in foreign patronage—be it Washington’s dollars or Beijing’s infrastructure—but cannot deliver justice or dignity at home, the bargain has already been lost.

As the Iranian–Israeli conflict rages, as Gaza bleeds, and as the great-game intensifies in South Asia, Pakistan stands at a crossroads: obey its patrons, shrink its sovereignty, and reclaim the empire-client script—or reject the military’s primacy, embrace true independence, and build a republic that answers not to external powers but to its people. The generals will tell you that the choice is security; the civilians will whisper it is dignity.

Here is the truth the generals, the politicians, and the strategists don’t want you to admit: you cannot rule a nation by telling its people to be silent while you thunder abroad. You cannot build strategic depth on the graves of your own citizens. You cannot pretend to champion Palestine while allying with its oppressors. You cannot call yourself a sovereign state when your alliances define you more than your aspirations.

Pakistan’s military may still march on; its generals may still wield the levers of power; Washington may still fax orders and funnel funds. But the people—they are waking up. And once the echo of Imran Khan’s voice becomes a roar, no amount of bayonets, no arsenal of deals, no drums of war will silence it. The generals may hold the fortress of Rawalpindi, but they cannot hold the conscience of a nation. The struggle for that is already well underway—and the verdict will not wait.

October 30, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | Afghanistan, Pakistan, United States | 1 Comment

Pakistan’s Gaza assignment: Policing resistance for Trump’s ‘peace’

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | October 9, 2025

Washington is looking to draft Pakistan into a sweeping plan to reshape Gaza under the guise of a 20-point “peace” initiative led by US President Donald Trump. At the heart of the proposal is an International Stabilization Force (ISF) tasked with enforcing “internal stability” in the devastated Palestinian enclave – a euphemism for dismantling resistance and tightening Israeli control.

Trump, standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a September press conference, laid out a scheme to forcibly relocate Palestinians and reconstruct Gaza as a neoliberal outpost he previously branded “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Pakistan’s public backlash builds

Details of the initiative have raised alarm in Pakistan, where any military collaboration with Israel is a red line for the establishment and the population, given that Islamabad does not recognize the state. Public backlash has intensified since revelations surfaced of Pakistan’s potential participation in the ISF, alongside forces from Egypt and Jordan.

The people of Pakistan would not accept Washington’s plan to deploy joint military forces from “like-minded Islamic countries” to eliminate resistance forces in Gaza. The opinion-makers, intellectuals, and political circles have already questioned the authority of the rulers to enter into a process that is aimed at transforming Palestine into a part of a “Greater Israel.”

Facing mounting domestic scrutiny, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar revealed in a 30 September press conference that the 20-point plan diverged sharply from what was initially agreed in Washington. His statement came amid growing demands for transparency from political leaders and civil society, many of whom accuse Islamabad of capitulating to Washington’s demands without a national consensus.

Pakistan’s refusal to join the Saudi and UAE-led coalition against the Ansarallah-aligned forces in Yemen still looms large in public memory. In 2015, Islamabad’s parliament voted unanimously to remain neutral, citing the dangers of waging war on a Muslim country and the risks of further sectarian entanglement. That restraint is now being contrasted with the military’s apparent willingness to deploy forces into a conflict zone tightly controlled by Israel.

It is equally important to note that, despite Tel Aviv’s lack of trust in Pakistan’s military establishment and the latter’s threats to target its nuclear assets in solidarity with Iran, it still chose to assign Pakistani forces a leading role in the proposed ISF. This suggests that Pakistan’s military leadership has offered significant, and so far undisclosed, concessions to Washington.

Pakistan’s business community is equally concerned about the reports regarding the US investment in Pasni Port terminals, located 120 kilometers from Iran and the Chinese-built Gwadar seaport. If the investment targets naval or military bases, there are concerns that it could draw regional ire from both Tehran and Beijing.

Imtiaz Gul, Pakistan defense analyst and Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), Islamabad, tells The Cradle:

“By all indications, Pakistan is likely to be part of the multinational Islamic force, albeit in a zone that will be totally at the mercy of and surrounded by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). To what extent this force can neutralize and eventually eliminate Hamas, which has backing from Iran, Turkiye, and Qatar, is difficult to forecast at this time.”

Gul adds that since Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan are all military-run states, they may coordinate more easily to oversee Gaza under occupation. The hope, he says, is that this cooperation might at least put a stop to Israel’s relentless slaughter of Palestinians.

From sanctions to red carpet

Pakistan’s sudden centrality to Trump’s Gaza plan is underpinned by a marked shift in Washington’s tone. Since the brief Pakistan–India skirmish in May, the US has rolled out the red carpet. Last month, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir were hosted in the Oval Office for a high-profile meeting with Trump.

The recent developments concerning West Asia have unequivocally revealed the transformation in Washington’s diplomatic approach toward Pakistan. President Trump expressed a strong belief that additional Muslim nations will soon become part of the Abraham Accords and commended Prime Minister Sharif and Field Marshal Munir for their full alignment with his peace initiative.

“Formally joining the Abraham Accords may be difficult currently, but informally following the path that the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar pursued looks quite probable,” Gul says. He asks if countries around Israel and Palestine can reconcile with ground realities, then why should Pakistan have a problem with a country that is not even a distant neighbor?

“The challenge is whether Pakistan can stay stable and can develop a national consensus on engaging with Israel – even if informally,” he explains.

Minerals, money, and military ports

Islamabad’s apparent rapprochement with Washington is not limited to Gaza. In October, Pakistan delivered its first shipment of enriched rare-earth elements to US Strategic Metals (USSM), part of a $500-million deal signed with the Pakistan army’s commercial arm, Frontier Works Organization (FWO). The minerals will feed a new polymetallic refinery funded by Washington.

The recent delivery to the USSM on 2 October has catalyzed a notable transformation in the dynamics of the Pakistan–US relationship.

Concurrently, reports surfaced of the aforementioned strategic proposal to build a port terminal in Pasni, Balochistan, submitted to US authorities by Pakistan’s military-linked business interests. Any such move carries profound strategic implications for China and Iran, which view Pasni’s proximity to Gwadar and Chabahar as vital to their own maritime interests.

Gwadar serves as a crucial component of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), featuring China’s strategically constructed Gwadar seaport.

On 4 October, senior security sources informed a select group of media representatives in Islamabad that Pakistan will not be extending an invitation to the US for a naval base in Balochistan. The reports circulating in foreign media regarding potential future public-private partnerships are simply proposals.

The security sources pointed out the immense potential of Pakistan’s coastline for both large and small commercial ports, noting that nations globally evaluate such partnership proposals.

“We shall uphold the primacy of Pakistan’s national interest in this framework. The nature of what defines the interests of the US holds no significance for us. Our primary concern is the advancement of Pakistan’s interests,” a defense spokesman remarked.

The official clarification only added confusion, claiming the port terminal proposal came from private business collaboration, even though the FWO is not a private entity but an army-run unit, raising questions about how such sensitive decisions are made.

Former Karachi Chamber of Commerce president Majyd Aziz tells The Cradle that it was imperative to limit the foreign military utilization of Pasni Port to uphold regional stability and prevent any discontent from Tehran and Beijing:

“Pakistani entrepreneurs are hesitant to invest in maritime sectors, leading to a dependence on foreign investment. This situation subsequently attracted the US interest in Pasni Port, which may carry serious implications for China’s influence in the region.”

Aziz adds that Gwadar’s underperformance has made smaller ports like Pasni, Ormara, and Jiwani more attractive. These offer lower costs, shorter routes, and better local integration. With over 85 percent of Pakistan’s trade dependent on maritime routes, diversifying port infrastructure is seen as essential to economic resilience.

Peace, under the boot

Trump’s so-called peace formula, presented alongside Netanyahu, aims to weaken Palestinian resistance by severing its supply chains and installing a proxy security apparatus.

The US-led ISF, with a significant Pakistani component, is the linchpin of this plan. But critics argue the operation is little more than a smokescreen for Tel Aviv’s next phase of territorial expansion.

As the details unfold, Islamabad faces a stark choice: yield to US pressure and risk regional isolation, or heed domestic voices warning against entanglement in a colonial project masquerading as peace.

October 9, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Israel, Pakistan, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Kabul hails regional powers’ rejection of foreign military bases in Afghanistan

MEMO | September 28, 2025

Afghanistan on Saturday welcomed a joint stance by China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan opposing any reestablishment of foreign military bases in the country, the Taliban administration said, Anadolu reports.

Hamdullah Fitrat, deputy spokesman of the interim government, issued the statement after foreign ministers of the four nations met on the sidelines of the 80th UN General Assembly in New York.

The four countries form a quadrilateral consultation mechanism created in 2017 to promote regional stability and coordinate efforts to counter terrorism, narcotics and extremism emanating from Afghan territory.

In a joint communique, they voiced support for Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and said they “firmly” oppose any move by outside powers to set up military bases in Afghanistan or the wider region.

Fitrat said that Afghanistan’s territory would not be allowed to be used against any country and that no armed groups are permitted to operate inside the country.

“Afghanistan is taking serious steps against corruption, drugs and all kinds of undesirable issues and considers this process its responsibility,” he said, adding that Kabul seeks positive relations with all countries based on “mutual respect.”

It comes days after US President Donald Trump warned “bad things” would happen if the interim Taliban administration did not cede control of Bagram Air Base to the Pentagon.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021 after the withdrawal of US-led forces ended a two-decade war.

Kabul has said it would not negotiate its territorial integrity and urged Trump to honor the 2020 Doha agreement.

September 28, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, United States | Leave a comment

Saudi-Pakistan defense pact: Reshaping security architecture in West and South Asia

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 27, 2025

In the intricate web of West Asian and South Asian geopolitics, where alliances often hinge on the precarious balance of power, energy dependencies, and ideological affinities, the signing of the strategic defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia marks a pivotal evolution.

This pact represents a calculated maneuver to fortify the alignment of defenses between the two Muslim-majority countries amid waning US commitments. Drawing from operational analyses of similar pacts, like the US-Japan security treaty or the erstwhile CENTO framework, this agreement integrates conventional military interoperability with implicit extended deterrence, potentially altering the calculus of regional power projection.

At its core, the agreement formalizes a mutual defense commitment, stipulating that an armed attack on either party constitutes an assault on both, triggering joint responses under Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense.

This language echoes NATO’s Article 5 but is tailored to the Persian Gulf’s hybrid threats, encompassing not just conventional invasions but also proxy warfare, cyber intrusions, and ballistic missile salvos. The pact builds on a 1982 protocol that already facilitated Pakistani troop deployments to Saudi Arabia—historically involving up to 20,000 personnel in advisory and training roles—but elevates it to a comprehensive framework for integrated operations.

Militarily, the agreement spans a spectrum of cooperation modalities. Joint exercises will intensify, drawing from existing bilateral drills like the Al-Samsam series, which have honed mechanized infantry maneuvers and anti-tank warfare using platforms such as Pakistan’s Al-Khalid main battle tanks (MBTs) and Saudi M1A2 Abrams variants.

Technology transfers are a cornerstone. Pakistan, with its robust defense-industrial base—including the production of JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters co-developed with China—will share expertise in low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Burraq, equipped with laser-guided munitions for precision strikes.

In return, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollar-fueled arsenal offers access to advanced air defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors, potentially integrating with Pakistan’s HQ-9/P (export variant of China’s FD-2000) to create layered anti-ballistic missile shields.

Arms procurement and co-production feature prominently, with provisions for joint ventures in missile technology—leveraging Pakistan’s Shaheen-III intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 2,750 km reach—and electronic warfare (EW) suites.

Intelligence sharing via secure datalinks will enhance situational awareness, focusing on various threats. Logistically, the pact enables forward basing: Pakistani Special Forces could embed with Saudi Rapid Intervention Forces for counterterrorism operations, while shared maintenance facilities for F-15SA Eagles and AH-64E Apache helicopters streamline sustainment in prolonged conflicts.

This blueprint for operational synergy mirrors how the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) integrates air assets under Peninsula Shield Force, but with Pakistan’s battle-hardened infantry adding asymmetric depth.

Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of this pact stems from a pragmatic recalibration of its security posture, driven by the kingdom’s Vision 2030 imperatives to reduce oil dependency. Riyadh views Pakistan as a Muslim-majority regional powerhouse with a professional army of over 650,000 active personnel, battle-tested in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and capable of rapid deployment via C-130J Super Hercules transports.

The kingdom’s goals are multifaceted: first, to hedge against US retrenchment, as evidenced by Washington’s equivocal responses to the 2019 Abqaiq attacks, which exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Patriot PAC-3 batteries despite their 90 percent intercept rates against subsonic threats.

Second, the pact bolsters deterrence against Iran’s symmetrical arsenal, including medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, which have ranges covering the Arabian Peninsula. By aligning with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia gains indirect access to a nuclear-capable partner, complementing its own nascent uranium enrichment program under IAEA safeguards.

Economically, it secures preferential access to Pakistani manpower—over 2 million expatriates already remit billions annually—while channeling investments into Pakistan’s defense sector, such as upgrading the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) for co-producing Al-Zarrar tanks.

A critical flashpoint is whether the pact extends Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan possesses an estimated 170 warheads, deliverable via Ghauri MRBMs (1,500 km range) or Ra’ad ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) from F-16C/D platforms, adhering to a “minimum credible deterrence” doctrine focused on India but adaptable to West Asian contingencies.

The agreement’s text maintains strategic ambiguity—no explicit mention of nuclear sharing—but statements from Pakistani government officials suggest availability “if needed,” implying extended deterrence similar to US commitments to NATO allies.

Analyses indicate this isn’t a formal nuclear-sharing arrangement like NATO’s B61 gravity bombs in Europe; rather, it’s a de facto assurance where Pakistani assets could be forward-deployed in extremis, perhaps via submarine-launched Babur-3 SLCMs from Agosta 90B-class boats.

Saudi funding has historically supported Pakistan’s program, per declassified US cables, but proliferation risks loom under the NPT, which Pakistan hasn’t signed. The pact stops short of a binding nuclear clause to avoid IAEA scrutiny, opting instead for “all necessary means” language that preserves deniability.

The pact’s ramifications cascade across the region, amplifying fault lines and complicating the Persian Gulf’s A2/AD dynamics. For the broader West Asia, it fortifies a new bloc, potentially integrating with the UAE’s Edge Group UAVs or Bahrain’s naval patrols under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This could escalate proxy conflicts in Yemen, where Saudi-led coalitions already employ Pakistani advisors, or in Syria, straining Russian-mediated de-escalation zones.

However, the agreement does not pose any threat to the Islamic Republic, given Pakistan’s role as Iran’s most important security partner, underscored by recent bilateral agreements on border security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, including efforts to combat smuggling and joint patrols.

Iran has welcomed the pact as a step toward “comprehensive cooperation among Muslim nations,” reflecting shared interests in regional stability through frameworks like the SCO.

Islamabad’s clarification that the agreement is “defensive and not aimed at third countries” is reassuring, preserving economic lifelines like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (delayed but vital for Pakistan’s energy security). Joint border patrols under the 2019 MoU persist, though the pact might divert Pakistani resources—e.g., diverting FC (Frontier Corps) units from anti-smuggling ops to Persian Gulf deployments.

Open-source indicators reveal keen interest from several nations in acceding to this framework, potentially evolving it into a multilateral shield. The UAE, with its Mirage 2000-9 fleet and ambitions for a “Persian Gulf NATO,” tops the list—Abu Dhabi’s prior defense MoUs with Pakistan (including pilot training) align seamlessly, and sources suggest imminent talks for integration.

Qatar, despite Al Udeid’s US basing, eyes the pact for diversified deterrence post-2022 blockade scars, with indications of exploratory discussions. Egypt emerges as a likely candidate: Cairo’s Sisi administration seeks Saudi funding for its T-90MS MBTs and could contribute expeditionary forces, as noted in geopolitical analyses.

Bahrain and Jordan, already in Saudi-led coalitions, have expressed interest via diplomatic channels, bolstering maritime interdiction in the Strait of Hormuz. Even Oman, traditionally neutral, monitors developments for selective engagement in counter-piracy ops.

Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.

September 27, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | Middle East, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

West’s grip slips with Saudi–Pakistan security deal

Riyadh’s pact with Islamabad redraws alliances, weakens Indian leverage, and hints at a new Muslim deterrence framework beyond western control.

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | September 23, 2025

On 17 September, Riyadh rolled out the rare royal purple carpet for Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – an honor previously reserved for global power players like US President Donald Trump.

Accompanying him on the trip was Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. His presence highlighted that Riyadh values its defense pact with a nuclear power that, despite economic challenges, remains militarily strong.

Nuclear umbrella over Riyadh

The centerpiece of their visit was the signing of a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” (SMDA), which declares that an attack on either country will be considered an attack on both.

Described by a senior Saudi official to Reuters as covering “all military means,” the pact has triggered speculation that it includes a nuclear umbrella, which would be a game-changing development in the military balance of West Asia.

With 81 percent of Pakistan’s weapon imports coming from China, the agreement implicitly aligns Saudi Arabia with the Chinese military-industrial orbit, whether by design or default. The kingdom has long been reliant on US arms, training, and security guarantees.

The pact was signed just two days after an extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was called, following the 9 September Israeli airstrikes on Qatar – a major non-NATO ally and Gulf neighbor – with no substantial response from Washington, reinforcing perceptions that western security commitments are both selective and expendable.

Mushahid Hussain Syed, a former information minister and chairman of Pakistan’s Senate Defense Committee, tells The Cradle that the US has pivoted away from Arab allies toward Tel Aviv, leaving the region disillusioned and increasingly leaning toward alternatives.

“The strategy of ‘Greater Israel,’ spearheaded by Netanyahu, has involved military actions against five more Muslim nations. Pakistan’s recent triumph against India has demonstrated its capacity to contest Israel’s significant ally, India, and establish itself as a strategic alternative for Gulf nations.”

Toward an Islamic NATO?

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani recently called for an Islamic military alliance, akin to NATO, in response to Israel’s airstrike on Doha. His proposal echoed Egypt’s earlier attempt to revive a joint Arab defense force under the 1950 treaty – an initiative blocked by Qatar and the UAE, reportedly under US pressure.

A similar proposal has also come from Islamabad when Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, urged Muslim countries to band together in a NATO-like military alliance in light of the Israeli aggression in Doha.

During an appearance on Geo TV last week, Asif drove home the point that a united Muslim military front is essential to tackle common security issues and fend off outside dangers. Asif invoked the wider role of the west in instigating instability in West Asia, emphasizing the intricate network of US support for Al-Qaeda and the CIA’s covert actions that led to Osama bin Laden’s relocation to Sudan or the regime change war in Syria.

Is nuclear deterrence a part of the Pact?

The nuclear dimension of the Riyadh–Islamabad pact remains opaque, but highly significant. While no official statement from either side confirms the presence of a nuclear component, Asif hinted that Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could be shared with Saudi Arabia as part of the agreement.

Syed, however, clarifies to The Cradle that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-centric and that its deterrence posture is South Asia-specific and does not extend to the Persian Gulf.

“A novel security framework for the region appears to be taking shape, focusing on Global South nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whereas the Indo-Israeli Axis, previously supported by the US, now finds itself significantly diminished.”

The defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he says, represents a notable achievement for Pakistan, establishing it as a pivotal entity within the geopolitical framework of West Asia, particularly among Muslim countries.

“The agreement is shaped by three significant elements: the perceived neglect of Arab allies by the United States, Israel’s proactive maneuvers in areas such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and Pakistan’s recent triumph over India in May.”

New Delhi, Tel Aviv on alert

Foreign media and analysts are already warning that the pact may have unintended consequences for India and Israel, despite claims that it targets neither. Others predict that this pact is really about Riyadh’s ambitions to counter Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in the region.

Dr Abdul Rauf Iqbal, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at Islamabad’s National Defence University (NDU), tells The Cradle that New Delhi views the pact with unease as it formalizes Saudi–Pakistani security ties that could entangle Riyadh in South Asian rivalries, especially the India–Pakistan border tensions over Jammu and Kashmir:

“It represents a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, potentially leading to Saudi involvement in a prospective Indo–Pak conflict. Furthermore, future Saudi investments in Pakistan’s Gwadar port and economic corridors would challenge India’s regional influence and initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC).”

He adds that Saudi Arabia’s pivot toward Pakistan reflects a broader alignment of Muslim powers and could push Tel Aviv to recalibrate its war on Gaza. It also pressures Tel Aviv by placing Pakistan – a vocal opponent of Israeli expansionism – into West Asian affairs.

“This agreement is not meant to counterbalance Iran’s regional influence, but rather to promote the Saudi Iranian reconciliation, as Pakistan maintains friendly relations with both nations. By formalizing ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh secures a credible deterrent as US security guarantees weaken. While western think tanks view it as an effort to contain Iran, the Arab world emphasizes it as strengthening Gulf deterrence independently of Washington.”

Indian concerns also stem from fears that the pact’s NATO-style clause could complicate ongoing operations like Sindoor, which remains active in a limited capacity following the skirmish between the two nuclear powers in May, especially given that the Gulf states’ swift mediation to resolve the crisis reflects their own interests with India and makes any military action against it unlikely.

Secondly, India is strategically analyzing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which could see a boost if Saudi Arabia, having no such capacity, begins channeling funds to share Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

A post-western Gulf order?

While Tel Aviv and New Delhi remain publicly silent, both capitals are undoubtedly scrutinizing the fallout. Israel’s failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and India’s pressure campaign along the Line of Control, suggest that the axis is nervous about the consequences of a Saudi–Pakistani alliance. Israeli media downplayed the Saudi–Pakistan defense deal, seeing it as a show of force after Riyadh failed to influence Trump or West Asian policy.

As Syed notes, “The traditional ‘Oil for Security’ framework, which once defined US relations with the Middle East [West Asia], now serves as a remnant of a bygone era. As Saudi economic power increasingly reinforces China’s backing of Pakistan, India may feel vulnerable and isolated.”

Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst with a focus on Pakistan and Balochistan, tells The Cradle that this development holds particular significance for India. New Delhi, he argues, has sustained robust economic and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for many years, and the influx of Saudi investments in India continues to expand:

“India will be meticulously observing the progression of this agreement, particularly given that its specific terms are not publicly available. Any alteration in the regional security equilibrium may influence India’s strategic assessments, energy security, and diplomatic relations.”

As Washington’s selective security guarantees falter and Israel escalates unchecked, Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are looking eastward for credible deterrents and strategic autonomy.

By aligning with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh is asserting greater independence from the western military order. It also signals the emergence of a multipolar Persian Gulf security architecture –one increasingly shaped by Global South coordination, not western diktats.

September 23, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | al-Qaeda, CIA, India, Israel, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Pakistan expands nuclear umbrella to cover Saudi Arabia

MEMO | September 22, 2025

A source close to the Saudi government said on Sunday that Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella will now extend to Saudi Arabia, just days after the two allies signed a surprise joint defence agreement.

The source revealed that the agreement had been in the works for several years, and added that Saudi Arabia expects India — Pakistan’s long-standing rival — to understand the Kingdom’s security needs.

When asked whether the agreement meant that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could be used to defend Saudi Arabia, Saudi writer and analyst Ali Shihabi, who is close to the royal court, confirmed: “Yes, that is correct.”

Shihabi added that nuclear protection is an integral part of the agreement, noting that Pakistan understands Saudi Arabia had effectively financed and supported its nuclear programme during times of international sanctions.

He also said he believed India would understand Saudi Arabia’s security requirements, describing current relations between Riyadh and New Delhi as “excellent.”

According to media reports, Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, told a local radio station that the country’s nuclear programme would be available to Saudi Arabia if needed, following the signing of the defence pact.

September 22, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zionism | Leave a comment

Pakistan says ‘door open’ for more Arab states to join mutual-defense pact

The Cradle | September 20, 2025

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on 18 September that “the doors are not closed” for other Arab states to join the new defense pact signed with Saudi Arabia.

Asif emphasized that there was no clause preventing Pakistan from extending similar arrangements to other nations.

The agreement was signed in Riyadh by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) during Sharif’s day-long visit, and declares that aggression against one country will be considered aggression against both.

A joint statement said the deal “reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieve security and peace in the region and the world.”

Asif also confirmed that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is included within the framework of the pact, describing it as a joint shield that leaves “no doubt” either side would respond if attacked.

“What we have, our capabilities, will absolutely be available under this pact,” Asif told Pakistani broadcaster Geo News.

He stressed that Pakistan had always placed its nuclear facilities under inspection and had “never committed any violation.”

“This agreement will not be a hegemonic arrangement but a defensive arrangement,” Asif emphasized.

“We don’t have any plans to conquer territory or attack anyone. But our fundamental right can’t be denied to us and we exercised that yesterday,” he added.

The minister drew comparisons with NATO, saying Muslim states had the same right to collective defense. “I think it is a fundamental right of the countries and people here, particularly the Muslim population, to together defend their region, countries, and nations.”

Pakistan has long stationed troops and air force units in Saudi Arabia, training Saudi forces and providing advisory support.

“I think that relationship has been more defined now and that understanding has been given the form of a defense agreement,” Asif explained.

Pakistani External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India would assess the implications for its national security, adding that the government remained committed to “ensuring comprehensive national security in all domains.”

Asif also tied the pact to Pakistan’s longstanding role in protecting Islamic holy sites in the kingdom, describing it as a “sacred duty.”

September 20, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | India, Israel, Middle East, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

Sabotage in the Skies: Was Pakistani General Zia-ul-Haq Murdered by Mossad?

The death of Pakistan’s military ruler remains one of the great unsolved puzzles of the 20th century

José Niño Unfiltered | August 17, 2025

37 years ago today, on August 17, 1988, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash that eliminated nearly every member of Pakistan’s military high command in a single devastating blow. The crash of Pak-1, a specially configured C-130 Hercules aircraft, near Bahawalpur claimed not only the Pakistani president and army chief but also Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, several senior Pakistani military officers, U.S. Ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel, and Brigadier General Herbert M. Wassom, head of the U.S. military aid mission to Pakistan.

Zia’s Strategic Legacy: Architect of Pakistan’s Nuclear Ambitions

Before examining the mysterious circumstances of his death, Zia’s foreign policy accomplishments merit recognition. During his rule (1978—1988), Zia transformed Pakistan from a middling regional actor into a regional power with the ability to change the strategic landscape. His most significant achievement was shepherding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program to near-completion while successfully balancing Cold War pressures.

After India conducted its first nuclear test—codenamed Smiling Buddha—on May 18, 1974, Pakistan moved swiftly toward its own weapons program. In response to this move, then-Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto pledged that his nation would not be left behind.

“We will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own,” he declared. Pointing to the existing arsenals of other faith-based powers, he remarked: “There is a Christian bomb, a Jewish bomb and now a Hindu bomb. Why not an Islamic bomb?”

When Zia took power in 1978, he continued the Pakistani ruling class plan to turn the South Asian nation into a nuclear power. In 1987, Zia told the Carnegie Endowment that Pakistan sought sufficient nuclear capability “to create an impression of deterrence.” His bold proclamation that Pakistan was “a screwdriver’s turn away from the bomb” sent shockwaves across intelligence communities worldwide.

The nuclear program’s success vindicated Zia’s vision. Pakistan conducted its first successful nuclear tests on May 28, 1998, becoming the world’s seventh nuclear power.

Pakistan’s Unpredictable Foreign Policy Under Zia

Zia’s foreign policy demonstrated remarkable strategic acumen. As the primary architect of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he successfully convinced initially reluctant Americans to provide massive military aid. CIA veteran Bruce Riedel emphasized that “the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was run by Zia, not by us.” Zia rejected President Carter’s initial $400 million aid offer as “peanuts” and ultimately secured $3.2 billion in military and economic aid from the Reagan administration.

Simultaneously, Zia pursued deeper ties with China and maintained complex relationships with Iran despite sectarian pressures. During the Iran-Iraq War, Pakistan officially maintained neutrality while covertly supporting Iran. Zia described Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as “a symbol of Islamic insurgence” in 1979 and was one of the first countries to diplomatically recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pakistan reportedly conducted clandestine arms deals that saw Chinese and U.S. weapons sent to Iran, including Silkworm and Stinger missiles originally intended for Afghan mujahideen, which played a decisive role for Iran in the “Tanker War” against Iraq.

The Fatal Flight: August 17, 1988

The events of that fateful day began routinely. Zia had traveled to Bahawalpur to witness a demonstration of the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams tank at the Thamewali Test Range. After the successful demonstration, organized by Major-General Mahmud Ali Durrani, Zia and his delegation departed by army helicopter before transferring to the specially configured C-130 for the return flight to Islamabad.

At 3:40 PM Pakistan Time, Pak-1 took off from Bahawalpur Airport with thirty people aboard, including 17 passengers and 13 crew members. The aircraft had been equipped with an air-conditioned VIP capsule where Zia and his American guests were seated, walled off from both the flight crew and passenger sections. For two minutes and thirty seconds, the plane rose into clear skies. Takeoff was smooth and without problems.

At 3:51 PM, Bahawalpur control tower lost contact. Witnesses cited in Pakistan’s official investigation reported that the C-130 began pitching “in an up-and-down motion” while flying low before going into a “near-vertical dive” and exploding on impact. The plane crashed with such force that it was blown to pieces, with wreckage scattered over a wide area. All 30 people aboard died instantly.

Brigadier Naseem Khan, flying a French-made Puma helicopter in the vicinity, was among the first to arrive at the crash site. “I walked all around it,” he later recalled. “The plane had crashed at an almost perpendicular angle. I first spotted the cap worn by Gen Wassom, and then Gen Akhtar Rahman’s peaked cap. Then my eye fell upon a dismembered leg, wearing a black sock and black shoe. I suspected it belonged to Gen Zia.”

The Cover-Up Begins

Pakistan’s board of inquiry concluded that the most likely cause of the crash was a criminal act of sabotage within the aircraft. Investigators suggested that toxic gases rendered passengers and crew unconscious, preventing any distress call from being made. Curiously, despite prior C-130 models being fitted with flight recorders, none was found after the crash.

The American response proved equally suspicious. According to former New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief and Council on Foreign Relations member Barbara Crossette’s investigation, Ambassador Robert Oakley and General George B. Crist of CENTCOM rejected an attempt to have the FBI investigate a crash that killed the U.S. ambassador and an American general. Instead, they arranged for the Pentagon and State Department to hold an inter-departmental inquiry. Both officials later apologized to Congress for this decision.

Within two months of the crash, the American government was alone in promoting the theory that mechanical malfunction brought down the plane. On the other hand, most Pakistanis assumed assassination from the start.

Ambassador John Gunther Dean’s Shocking Revelations

The most explosive allegations about Zia’s death came from an unexpected source. John Gunther Dean, who in 1988 served as U.S. Ambassador to India, was a distinguished diplomat with four decades of service who had held more ambassadorships than most envoys. Dean was uniquely positioned to observe the aftermath of Zia’s death, and what he suspected would end his diplomatic career.

Dean believed the plot to eliminate General Zia bore the hallmarks of Israel, specifically the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. His suspicions weren’t outlandish. Dean had personal experience with Israeli operations. Eight years earlier, while serving as Ambassador to Lebanon, Israelis had sought his support for their local projects, assuming that a fellow Jew would be willing to cooperate with them. When Dean rejected those overtures and declared his primary loyalty was to America, an attempt was made to assassinate him.

On August 28, 1980, Dean, his wife, daughter, and son-in-law narrowly escaped serious injury in a motorcade attack in suburban Beirut. The munitions were eventually traced back to Israel. Dean later discovered the Lebanese group claiming responsibility was an Israeli-created front organization used to carry out Mossad terrorist attacks.

Barbara Crossette’s Investigation

In 2005, after 17 years of silence, Dean finally revealed his suspicions to Barbara Crossette, in what would become a landmark investigation. Crossette’s 5,000-word article “Who Killed Zia?” appeared in the prestigious World Policy Journal, published by The New School in New York City under academic Stephen Schlesinger.

Dean’s theory centered on Israel’s alarm over Pakistan’s nuclear program. A few years before his death, Zia took bold steps to develop a nuclear weapons program. Although his primary motive was balancing India’s nuclear arsenal, Zia promised to share such weapons with other Muslim countries, including those in the Middle East. This possibility created major concerns in the Israeli national security community.

According to journalist Eric Margolis, Israel repeatedly tried to enlist India in launching a joint assault against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. After careful consideration, India declined. This left Israel in a quandary. Zia was a proud military dictator with very close U.S. ties that strengthened his diplomatic leverage. Pakistan was 2,000 miles from Israel and possessed a strong military, making any long-distance bombing raid similar to the 1981 strike against Iraq’s Osirak reactor virtually impossible. That left assassination as the remaining option.

The Diplomatic Retaliation

Dean chose proper diplomatic channels rather than media disclosure. He immediately departed for Washington to share his views with State Department superiors and other top Administration officials. Upon reaching Washington, Dean was quickly declared mentally incompetent, prevented from returning to his India posting, and soon forced to resign. His four-decade career in government service came to a screeching halt.

Dean was sent to Switzerland to “rest” for six weeks before being allowed to return to New Delhi to pack his belongings and resign. He lost his medical clearance and security clearance because of his views about the crash. The accusation of “mental imbalance” effectively ended any investigation into his allegations.

One might expect such explosive charges from such a solid source would provoke considerable press attention, but the story was instead totally ignored and boycotted by the entire North American media. Stephen Schlesinger, who had spent a decade at the helm of World Policy Journal, saw his name vanish from the masthead shortly after publication, and his employment at The New School came to an end.

Ron Unz observed, with some shock, that the article is no longer available on the World Policy Journal website, though the text remains accessible via Archive.org. Even Dean’s detailed New York Times obituary portrayed his distinguished career in flattering terms while devoting not a single sentence to the bizarre circumstances under which it ended.

Zia’s Legacy Lives On

The patterns established during Zia’s era continue influencing Pakistan’s foreign policy today, often creating tension with traditional allies. Pakistan’s integration into China’s Belt and Road Initiative through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor represents the kind of independent alignment that characterized Zia’s approach to international relations.

However, recent attacks on Chinese nationals working in Pakistan have troubling parallels to the covert plans to potentially target Pakistan’s nuclear program in the 1980s. What was envisioned as a secure trade and energy corridor linking Xinjiang to Gwadar has instead become a flashpoint for insurgency. Baloch separatists, particularly the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), have repeatedly targeted Chinese personnel and infrastructure in a campaign to derail Pakistan’s partnership with China.

These efforts have ranged from the killing of nine Chinese engineers at the Dasu Hydropower Project in 2021, to Operation Dara-e-Bolan in January 2024, and the March 2025 hijacking of the Jaffar Express that left 59 dead. Each new CPEC agreement, including six signed in 2023, has provoked fresh waves of violence, underscoring the project’s vulnerability. Far from isolated incidents, this sustained series of attacks highlights how militant groups and their great power patrons see undermining CPEC as central to weakening the Chinese-Pakistani alliance.

Speculation about Western intelligence support for Balochi separatists has gained currency in recent years. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), with documented ties to Israeli intelligence, launched a Balochistan Studies Project in 2025. This initiative highlighted Balochistan’s strategic importance for monitoring Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear program, suggesting Israel’s continued interest in leveraging regional ethnic tensions for broader geopolitical objectives.

The Imran Khan Parallel

The 2022 removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan bears striking similarities to the pressures Zia faced for maintaining independent foreign policy positions. Khan’s insistence on neutrality regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict angered Washington, just as Zia’s support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War created friction with Reagan administration officials.

The leaked diplomatic cable published by The Intercept revealed that U.S. State Department official Donald Lu explicitly linked Khan’s removal to his Russia policy. “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu stated. “Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.”

Khan was removed through a no-confidence vote on April 10, 2022, exactly one month after the threatening meeting with U.S. officials. The parallel with Zia’s fate thirty-four years earlier is unmistakable: Pakistani leaders who pursue independent foreign policies will face tremendous pressure from Washington and could be unceremoniously removed from power.

Iran-Pakistan Relations: From Conflict to Cooperation

The January 2024 tit-for-tat missile exchanges between Iran and Pakistan initially appeared to represent a dangerous escalation. Iran struck Balochi separatist targets in Pakistani Balochistan on January 16, killing two children. Pakistan retaliated two days later, targeting Balochi militants in Iranian Sistan-Baluchestan province, killing nine people including four children.

However, the rapid diplomatic resolution echoed Zia’s approach to managing regional relationships. Within days, both countries agreed to de-escalate through diplomatic channels. The now-deceased Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian visited Pakistan on January 29, 2024, leading to agreements on enhanced security cooperation and intelligence sharing. This swift return to cooperation reflected the kind of pragmatic diplomacy Zia employed during the Iran-Iraq War.

This move also reflects the new challenge of challenging Judeo-American perfidy with respect to the activation of Balochi militants against the security interests of both Iran and Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan have been increasingly alarmed by the growing nexus between Baloch separatists and Israel, which both states see as a direct threat to their security. As Mansur Khan Mahsud of Pakistan’s FATA Research Centre told The Cradle, “During the recent 12-day standoff between Iran and Israel, Tehran noticed a tight-knit connection between Baloch separatists and Israel. Their sharing of intelligence with Tel Aviv led to significant human and infrastructure losses for Iran.”

Tehran has gone further with its accusations, directly implicating Tel Aviv and accusing Israel of recruiting and deploying mercenaries through the Balochistan Liberation United Front (BLUF). Abdullah Khan of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies warned: “Iran is enhancing its ties with Pakistan in the background of militants’ increased alignment with Israel. Their liaison with Tel Aviv would further crystallize when Iran shifts its policies and takes action against BLA and BLF sanctuaries within its territory. India has cultivated strong ties with both groups, enabling it to serve as a bridge to connect them with Israel.”

The Multipolar Reality

Today’s geopolitical environment increasingly resembles the complex balance Zia navigated during the 1980s. Pakistan’s alignment with China and Iran in various contexts, from CPEC to regional security cooperation against Israel’s Judeo-Accelerationist foreign policy, represents the kind of hedging strategy Zia pioneered.

The emergence of a multipolar world order, with China and Russia challenging American hegemony, provides Pakistan with alternatives to complete dependence on Washington. This mirrors the strategic space Zia created by balancing Cold War pressures while pursuing Pakistan’s independent interests.

The emergence of India as a strategic partner for both Israel and the United States creates new pressure points for Pakistan. This convergence of Israeli and American interests regarding Pakistan mirrors the strategic calculations that may have motivated action against Zia in 1988. Pakistan’s continued opposition to India, combined with its growing alignment with China and Iran, places it squarely in opposition to the emerging U.S.-India-Israel axis.

Just as Zia-ul-Haq’s demise brought one era to a close, the unresolved questions surrounding his death continue to haunt Pakistan’s foreign policy decision-making in a world where old alliances fade and new fault lines emerge.

August 22, 2025 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Iran, Israel, Pakistan, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

World rallies behind Syria as Israel tears away at it

Press TV – July 18, 2025

International organizations and a whole host of countries have expressed outright condemnation of the Israeli regime’s escalating deadly and destructive attacks against Syria under the pretext of protecting the country’s Druze minority.

A torrent of statements followed the regime’s attack on various areas in the country on Wednesday, including areas lying in its south, in reported support for the Druze.

The attacks came as fighting between members of the minority and Bedouin tribes has killed hundreds of people, with the Israeli involvement being feared to be aimed at intensifying the confrontations and further destabilizing Syria.

UNSC calls for end to Israel’s ‘impunity’

Addressing the situation, Pakistan, which holds the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)’s rotating presidency, denounced the Israeli aggression.

Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad noted that the attacks resembled Tel Aviv’s atrocities against the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen, all of which violated the international law. The envoy also called for an end to the regime’s impunity.

Mohamed Khaled Khiari, UN assistant secretary-general, denounced the Israeli escalation on the part of the world body’s chief, Antonio Guterres.

He said the attacks amounted toa violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and further destabilized the country amid the already sensitive situation.

The official also advised that Tel Aviv respect the 1974 agreement that has mandated its refusal to conduct violations against the Arab nation.

China calls for Israeli withdrawal

Geng Shuang, China’s deputy UN ambassador, said Beijing called on “Israel to immediately cease its military strikes on Syria and withdraw from Syrian territory without delay.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian also said the attacks amounted to a flagrant violation of international law and Syria’s sovereignty, saying the Arab country had to be spared of whatever measure that could lead to further crisis and tension.

Turkey: ‘Terror state’ Israel using Druze as excuse

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the Israeli regime a “terror state.”

“Israel, using the Druze as an excuse, has been expanding its banditry into neighboring Syria over the past two days,” he said in a televised speech.

Erdogan said Turkey would not allow Syria’s partition, saying Tel Aviv’s actions showed it was not after peace.

PGCC: Israel after irresponsible escalation

The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council’s Secretary-General, Jasem Mohammed Albudaiw,i also said the Israeli regime’s atrocities indicated its efforts at irresponsible intensification of standing tensions.

The Israeli aggression, he added, also showed the regime’s disregard for the international community’s efforts at realizing stability and ensuring security in Syria.

Hamas: Israeli aggression ‘systematic terrorism’

The Palestinian resistance movements, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, called the atrocities “organized terrorism.”

The latter also said Tel Aviv was trying to fragment the region through violence, reaffirming solidarity with Syria and supporting its right to resist by all means.

Ansarullah: Israeli attacks part of ‘imperialist scheme’

Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement denounced the Israeli strikes as part of a larger “imperialist scheme” to dominate the Arab and Muslim world.

It called for a unified Arab-Islamic response and an end to silence in the face of the aggression.

Muslim states hold intensive talks

Foreign ministers from various regional Muslim countries have, meanwhile, held intensive talks concerning the state of affairs.

The talks were held among top diplomats from Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Egypt.

The discussions that were held with the aim of helping the countries in question adopt a unified stance in the face of the situation saw the officials reiterate support for Syria’s security, unity, stability, and sovereignty.

They called on the UNSC to assume its legal and moral duties towards guaranteeing the withdrawal of the Israeli regime from Syria, and bringing about an end to its aggression by obliging it to abide by the 1974 agreement.

Malaysia: Israel threatening international peace

Malaysia also called for the international community “not to tolerate the continued aggression by the Israeli Zionist regime against other countries, threatening regional and international peace and security.”

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said after decades of hardship, the Syrian people deserved peace, not further violence and external interference.

Norway’s foreign minister has also said he was “deeply concerned about recent Israeli airstrikes and rising domestic tensions.”

July 18, 2025 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation | China, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, Syria, Zionism | Leave a comment

Pakistan won’t remain silent if US, Israel target Ayatollah Khamenei: Senator

Press TV – June 30, 2025

A Pakistani senator has condemned a threat by the US and Israel to target Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, saying it will trigger a response from all Muslim nations, including Pakistan.

Allama Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a member of the Pakistani Senate, described Ayatollah Khamenei as a religious leader and a Marja (religious authority), who is also a political leader.

Religious authorities issued a fatwa (religious decree) that says anyone who threatens the Leader is an enemy of God, whose punishment is death in Islam, he noted.

Between June 13 and 24, Israel waged a blatant and unprovoked aggression against Iran, assassinating many high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.

On June 22, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

During the 12-day war, US President Donald Trump claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was “an easy target.”

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also ranted that the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei would “end” the war.

The Pakistani senator said Trump and Netanyahu should know that if an attack is carried out, it will not just be an attack on Iran, and all Muslims in the world will respond to it.

“We will respond in Pakistan as well; if such an action is taken, no American will remain in Pakistan. We will not remain silent when they (Trump and Netanyahu) do not abide by any law,” he added.

On Sunday, senior Iranian clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani issued religious decrees against any attack or threat to Ayatollah Khamenei.

They said that any person or regime that threatens or attacks the leadership and religious authority to harm the Islamic Ummah and its sovereignty is subject to the ruling of confrontation.

June 30, 2025 Posted by aletho | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Pakistan, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Pakistan breaks ranks, backs Iran in war with Israel

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | June 19, 2025

Despite Islamabad’s official denials of providing military or material support to Iran in its confrontation with Israel, recent developments suggest a dramatic shift in regional alignments. Today, Pakistan and China appear to be coordinating closely with Tehran, offering tangible strategic advantages as Tel Aviv escalates its hostilities.

As war clouds gathered, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held urgent discussions with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on 14 June. That same day, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who expressed Islamabad’s “resolute solidarity” with Iran. He also added that the country “stands firmly with the Iranian people in this critical hour.”

China and Pakistan’s role

In the immediate aftermath, reports emerged of Pakistani military delegations arriving in Tehran amid the hostilities. Although swiftly denied by Islamabad, the timing and context fuel speculation of deeper collaboration. Similarly, Beijing reportedly greenlit the transfer of its BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) technology to Iran, formalized in a new bilateral MoU – an upgrade that dramatically enhanced the precision of Iranian missile strikes.

Though Pakistan continues to reject claims of missile transfers to Iran, its stance in recent days paints a different picture. On 16 June, members of the Iranian parliament chanted “Thank you, thank you Pakistan” following remarks by Pezeshkian, who praised Pakistan for standing by Iran. These developments fly in the face of Pakistan’s non-alignment rhetoric and indicate an ideological and strategic realignment by Islamabad.

It was only early last year that Iran launched missile and drone strikes into Pakistan’s Balochistan region on 16 January, targeting extremist militant group Jaish al-Adl positions. Pakistan retaliated two days later on 18 January, conducting air and missile strikes into Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province in an operation dubbed Marg Bar Sarmachar. The tit-for-tat was remarkably friendly in the final analysis, and appears to have settled some critical border cooperation issues between the two states.

The fact that these former adversaries – who had just engaged in direct military exchanges – have now adopted “resolute solidarity” is nothing short of breathtaking.

Beijing’s embrace of Iran is grounded in energy security and strategic depth instead. Its ambitious, multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aimed at linking the Eurasian landmass hinges on the stability of Tehran and Islamabad, with the Gwadar and Chahbahar ports forming key arteries in China’s westward expansion.

China also supplies J-10 fighter jets and HQ‑9 air‑defense systems to Pakistan, which played key roles in the extraordinary May 2025 skirmish between India and Pakistan – marking major testing ground for Chinese weapons. A parallel circumstance is present in Iran. China must acknowledge Iran because it is a crucial supporter of China’s energy needs and trade operations.

“The enemy of my friend is my enemy” may well define the new tripartite logic binding Iran, Pakistan, and China in resistance to Israeli and western designs.

Colonial ambitions and nuclear red lines

Tel Aviv’s recent strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure mark a new phase in a decades-long western strategy aimed at dismantling Muslim powers resistant to colonial domination. Iraq, Syria, Libya – all were destabilized under similar pretexts. The 2001 plot, conceived by the US, its European allies, and Israel, has entered its second phase, targeting Iran initially and Pakistan subsequently.

In a 2011 interview with Channel 2, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid bare the logic: Iran and Pakistan are the primary targets of this containment strategy, he stated blankly. “These radical regimes … pose a significant threat,” he said, stressing the need to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capability.

But recent Israeli provocations have instead triggered multipolar resistance to those plans. Speaking to The Cradle, Abdullah Khan of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) reveals that Israeli drone operators had recently attempted to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear facilities during the India–Pakistan crisis:

“Israeli drone operators were stationed in Indian operation rooms during the recent Pakistan–India conflict, trying to target Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. However, prompt action from Pakistan thwarted their efforts, preventing them from causing any damage to the nuclear assets of Pakistan.”

Defensive posturing or new axis?

A source in Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry reveals to The Cradle that Islamabad has quietly warned Washington of a potential nuclear escalation should Israel attack Iran with such weapons.

“If such a situation arises, it will spill beyond Iran. The region will enter a new, unpredictable security phase,” the source states.

The warning was soon echoed in Tehran. On 16 June, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Mohsen Rezaei declared on state television:

“Pakistan has told us that if Israel uses nuclear missiles, we will also attack it with nuclear weapons.”

Meanwhile, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif caused a stir with an incendiary post targeting exiled Iranian royal Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted shah of Iran. In response to Pahlavi’s BBC interview, Asif wrote on X:

“If Iranian people are energized and motivated, according to you, show some balls and go back and lead them and remove the regime. Put your money where your arse is, bloody parasitical imperial whore.”

Bilal Khan, a Toronto-based defense/security analyst and the co-founder of independent think tank Quwa Defence News & Analysis Group, tells The Cradle that Islamabad perceives itself as under coordinated pressure from the US, India, and Israel.

“The Pakistani security elite perceive that the US and its counter-proliferation regime are imposing penalties on Pakistan, although it was India that brought the nuclear issue to South Asia. “There exists a structural perception in Rawalpindi that the US, along with its allies India and Israel, is targeting Pakistan’s nuclear program. Nonetheless, it remains uncertain how Pakistan will handle the situation. Certainly, increased investment in air defense systems, enhanced domestic intelligence capabilities, and strengthening the air force with next-generation J-35 stealth fighters are all essential to take on any possible Israeli actions.”

From denial to celebration

While Islamabad has offered no formal commitment of military aid to Tehran, Iranian media and parliament are now rallying around Pakistan with chants of “Pakistan Zindabad.”

Diplomatically, Islamabad has backed Tehran’s call for a UN Security Council session on Israeli aggression and explicitly defended Iran’s right to self-defense. Alongside Algeria, China, and Russia, Pakistan played a key role in amplifying Iran’s initiative, marking a coordinated diplomatic front that signals a deeper convergence within the Eurasian bloc. This is no small gesture from a country once considered a possible target of Israel’s preemptive doctrine.

In a move that exposes Washington’s alarm, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was quietly summoned to the US Central Command headquarters in Florida. His absence from a key national parade in Islamabad has raised questions at home. While the Pakistani embassy remains tight-lipped, Dawn cited sources anticipating “uncomfortable conversations” in Washington.

Whether Munir’s US visit results in a recalibration or further consolidation of Islamabad’s alignment with Tehran and Beijing remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Pakistan is no longer sitting on the fence.

June 19, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Zionism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries

Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth

By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012

In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.

So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,407 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,254,701 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

December 2025

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

« Nov
Categories

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

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

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Use

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

DMCA Contact

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

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

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

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

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

	Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate…
	Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa…
	Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
	John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat…
	eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud…
	rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch…
	loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea…
	eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster
	Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta…
	cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab…
	loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita…
	loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan [ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images]

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info