Iraqi PM Calls For Islamic Military Alliance Against Israel
Sputnik – 14.09.2025
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani urged Arab and Muslim nations to form a joint security force in response to Israel’s recent strikes in Gaza and Qatar.
He said Tuesday’s Israeli attack on Doha, which killed Hamas members and a Qatari officer, was a “shocking breach of international law” and a threat to regional security.
Sudani stressed that the Islamic world has “numerous levers” to deter Israel, warning that aggression “will not stop at Qatar.”
His remarks came ahead of the Arab-Islamic emergency summit in Doha on Sept 15–16, amid Israeli strikes on Qatar, where leaders are expected to discuss activating the long-proposed joint Arab military force.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council chairman Ali Larijani has also called on Islamic nations to create a “joint operations room” against Israel.
Egypt, meanwhile, is pushing for a NATO-style Arab military force for rapid defense in case of attacks, with Cairo seeking regional backing for the plan ahead of the summit.
The Israeli strike on Doha hit a residential compound where Hamas politburo members were meeting to discuss a US proposal to end the Gaza war, which has already claimed more than 64,800 Palestinian lives since October 2023.
Israel’s Doha Strike Burns Bridges for Peace, Marks Dangerous Strategic Overstretch – Experts
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Israel expanded the geography of countries it has bombed on Tuesday, targeting a delegation of Hamas officials involved in peace negotiations in Qatar. Sputnik asked a pair of regional experts how the aggression will impact Israel’s position in the region in the long term.
Israeli military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now the Gulf signal an “overstretch” that won’t be left without serious diplomatic repercussions, Ankara-based security analyst Dr. Hasan Selim Ozertem has told Sputnik.
“Looking at Europe, looking at the US, looking at the Gulf, these countries have started to articulate their concerns about Israeli aggression, which was not the case before because of the leverage of the Israeli lobby, especially in US politics,” Ozertem explained.
With Qatar serving as mediator in the Gaza war, the Doha attack “also undermines Israel’s credibility” among the Gulf powers Tel Aviv wants to forge ties with through the Abraham Accords.
Israel’s aggression may even result in the creation of new regional pacts, Ozertem says.
“The Saudi Crown Prince said [Riyadh] will be supporting Qatar. In the past, we know that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had political problems. They managed to solve them. Now we are talking about a military alliance…an anti-Israeli opinion or bloc in the region among local actors… increasing the probability of potential confrontation between Israel and others.”
Burning Bridges
“By attacking Doha as peace negotiations for ending the Gaza genocide were in progress, Netanyahu once again demonstrated his disdain for negotiations and his preference for brute force as the ultimate solution,” says Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar.
Netanyahu’s strategy of “managed chaos” threatens to spiral out of control, and further isolate Israel “by making it a rogue, pariah state,” Kamrava said.
Besides Israel’s reputation, the attack promises to “cost the US much of its already diminished credibility in the Arab world,” the scholar says, emphasizing that unconditional US support for Israel is proving “extremely costly” as the Israeli government takes actions that make it seem increasingly “unhinged” and “devoid of all rationality.”
Riyadh realigns: Tehran over Tel Aviv
The Cradle | July 8, 2025
The recent confrontation between Iran and Israel marked a decisive shift in regional power equations, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s direct and calibrated military response – executed through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – exposed the strategic vulnerabilities of Tel Aviv and forced Gulf capitals, chiefly Riyadh, to reassess long-standing assumptions about regional security.
The Saudi-led recalibration did not emerge in isolation. Years of cumulative political, military, and diplomatic failures under the umbrella of US-Israeli tutelage have pushed Persian Gulf states to seek more viable, non-confrontational security arrangements. What we are witnessing is the slow dismantling of obsolete alliances and the opening of pragmatic, interest-driven channels with Tehran.
Iran’s war strategy resets Gulf expectations
Tehran’s handling of the latest military clash – with its reliance on precision strikes, regional alliances, and calibrated escalation – demonstrated a new level of deterrence. Using its regional networks, missile bases, and sophisticated drones, Tehran managed the confrontation very carefully, avoiding being drawn into all-out war, but at the same time sending clear messages to the enemy about its ability to deter and expand engagement if necessary.
The message to the Gulf was clear: Iran is neither isolated nor vulnerable. It is capable of shaping outcomes across multiple fronts without falling into full-scale war.
Speaking to The Cradle, a well-informed Arab diplomat says:
“This war was a turning point in the Saudi thinking. Riyadh now understands Iran is a mature military power, immune to coercion. Traditional pressure no longer works. Saudi security now depends on direct engagement with Iran – not on Israel, and certainly not under the receding American security umbrella.”
At the heart of Saudi discontent lies Tel Aviv’s escalating aggression against the Palestinians and its outright dismissal of Arab peace initiatives, including the Riyadh-led 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence – particularly the aggressive expansion of settlements in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank – has alarmed the Saudis.
These provocations not only sabotage diplomatic efforts but strike at the kingdom’s pan-Islamic legitimacy, forcing a reassessment of Israel’s utility as a strategic partner. As the diplomatic source notes:
“This Israeli political stalemate pushes Saudi Arabia to reconsider its regional bets and view Iran as a regional power factor that cannot be ignored.”
Riyadh turns to Tehran: containment over confrontation
Behind closed doors, Saudi Arabia is advancing a strategy of “positive containment” with Iran. This marks a clear departure from the era of proxy wars and ideological hostility. Riyadh is no longer seeking confrontation – it is seeking coordination, particularly on issues of regional security and energy.
Diplomatic sources inform The Cradle that the reopening of embassies and stepped-up security coordination are not mere side effects of Chinese mediation. They reflect a deeper Saudi conviction: that normalization with Israel yields no meaningful security dividends, especially after Tel Aviv’s exposed vulnerabilities in the last war.
Riyadh’s new path also signals its growing appetite for regional solutions away from Washington – a position increasingly shared by other Persian Gulf states.
For its part, the Islamic Republic is moving swiftly to convert military leverage into political capital. Beyond showcasing its missile and drone capabilities, Iran is now actively courting Arab states of the Persian Gulf with proposals for economic cooperation, regional integration, and the construction of an indigenous security architecture.
Informed sources reveal to The Cradle that Iran is pursuing comprehensive engagement with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman. This includes economic partnerships and alignment on key regional files, from Yemen to Syria and Iraq.
Tehran’s position is consistent with its long-stated view: The Persian Gulf’s security must be decided by its littoral states and peoples – not by foreign agendas.
A new Gulf alliance is taking shape
This is no longer a Saudi story alone. The UAE is expanding economic cooperation with Tehran, while maintaining open security channels. Qatar sustains a solid diplomatic line with Iran, using its credibility to broker key regional talks. Oman remains the region’s trusted bridge and discreet mediator.
An Arab diplomat briefed on recent developments tells The Cradle :
“Upcoming Gulf–Iran meetings will address navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, energy coordination, and broader regional files. There is consensus building that understanding with Iran [will] open the door to a more stable phase in the Gulf.”
Amid these realignments, Israel finds itself regionally sidelined – its project to forge an anti-Iran axis has crumbled. The US-brokered Abraham Accords – once trumpeted as a strategic triumph – now elicit little more than polite disinterest across the Gulf, with even existing Arab signatories walking back their engagement.
Riyadh’s political elite now openly question the utility of normalization. As Tel Aviv continues its war on Gaza, Gulf populations grow more vocal and Saudi leaders more cautious.
The Saudi position is unspoken but unmistakable: Tel Aviv can no longer guarantee security, nor can it be viewed as the gatekeeper to regional stability any longer.
Pragmatism trumps ideology
This Saudi–Iranian thaw is not ideological – it is hard-nosed realpolitik. As another senior Arab diplomat tells The Cradle :
“Riyadh is discarding illusions. Dialogue with neighbors – not alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv – is now the route to safeguarding Saudi interests. This is now about facts, not old loyalties. Iran is now a fixed component of the Gulf’s security equation.”
The binary of “Gulf versus Iran” is fading. The last war accelerated a trend long in motion: the collapse of Pax Americana and the emergence of multipolar regionalism. The Gulf is charting a new course – one less beholden to US-Israeli diktats.
Today, Saudi Arabia sees Tehran not as a threat to be neutralized, but as a power to be engaged. Regional security frameworks are being built from within. Israel, meanwhile, despite its many pontifications about a Tel Aviv-led, Arab-aligned “Middle East,” is struggling to stay relevant.
If these dynamics hold, we are on the cusp of a historic transition – one that may finally allow the Persian Gulf to define its own security and sovereignty, on its own terms.
This is not an ideal future. But it is a strategic upgrade from decades of subservience. Saudi Arabia is turning toward Iran – not out of love, but out of logic.
Russia warns of Israeli ‘war party’ seeking to reignite aggression against Iran
Press TV – July 4, 2025
Russia has warned about various Israeli officials’ efforts to trigger the resumption of aggression against Iran.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the remarks during a press conference alongside his visiting Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Moscow on Friday.
“We sincerely hope that the so-called 12-day war is indeed over,” the Russian top diplomat said.
He was referring to the Israeli regime’s launching attacks against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear, military, and civilian targets on June 13. The assaults claimed the lives of at least 935 Iranians, including senior military officials and nuclear scientists, the latter group being targeted inside their residential buildings.
The Islamic Republic responded with decisive defensive maneuvers and counterstrikes, hitting critically sensitive nuclear, military, and industrial infrastructure across the occupied Palestinian territories. The retaliation forced the regime to request a ceasefire.
Lavrov, however, warned, “We intend to stay vigilant, as the ‘war party’ remains highly active in the Middle East.”
“We keep hearing a variety of statements from some representatives of the Israeli leadership,” he added, suggesting that those officials were persistently agitating for the resumption of aggression against the Islamic Republic.
Iran has, on many occasions since the cessation of the attacks, cautioned that its next reprisal against potential renewed aggression would be of far more intensity and magnitude to the extent that it would take Tel Aviv and its allies by surprise.
‘European states role in war’
Elsewhere in his remarks, Lavrov criticized some European states’ “aggressive” anti-Iranian efforts, which saw them force the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Board of Governors to issue its most recent anti-Iranian resolution.
He pointed out how the European countries “unnecessarily and aggressively pushed through anti-Iranian resolutions, which did nothing to ease tensions or advance negotiations, but instead created a pretext for forceful measures.”
The Israeli regime used the resolution as a pretext to launch the war. The resolution was also used by the United States, the regime’s biggest ally, as a plea to join it in attacking Iran towards the end of the warfare.
“I sincerely hope that European nations will come to recognize their responsibility and their share of the blame,” Lavrov said.
For his part, the Saudi foreign minister also underlined that differences with the Islamic Republic had to be resolved through diplomatic processes.
BJP-led team returns from West Asia
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 4, 2025
The multi-party delegation led by the BJP Vice-President and spokesman Bijayant Panda which toured four countries in the Gulf region — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria — to rally support for the government’s war on terror against Pakistan has returned. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar “lauded their efforts,” per media reports.
This was the most consequential delegation out of the five delegations that the government mounted to mobilise international opinion. The tidings from the Gulf have great ‘grassroots resonance’ in India’s domestic politics.
A member of Panda’s team said, “We briefed the EAM … that India’s growing economic might and position in the world order, secured by PM Narendra Modi’s diplomatic push during his tenure and visits to several nations, are key when it comes to the world’s decision to stand with us as partners both in international trade as well as on the issue of zero tolerance against terrorism.”
West Asia is India’s ‘extended neighbourhood.’ And India’s West Asian diplomacy does carry the imprimatur of Modi. For that reason, an ex-Foreign Secretary was included in Panda’s team to navigate the tricky mission. What comes to mind is Panda’s challenge was similar to Nikita Khrushchev’s as the Commissar of the Red Army at the Stalingrad Front in World War II.
Khrushchev shouted at the commanders of the 62nd Army and the 64th Army on the Stalingrad Front, ‘Comrades, this is no ordinary city. This is Stalingrad. It carries the name of the Boss.” The generals got the message and went on to crush the crack Nazi Panzer Divisions and turn the tide of the Battle of Stalingrad, which is still remembered as the bloodiest and fiercest battle of the entirety of World War II — and, arguably, in all of human history.
But Panda didn’t have such an option. His delegation received a warm reception. But the profoundly worrisome reality still continues, namely, the Gulf regimes are taking a ‘proforma’ attitude, voicing hackneyed words on terrorism but also echoing the burgeoning world opinion that India and Pakistan ought to find a solution to their issues through dialogue and negotiations.
The Gulf states have neatly sidestepped Pakistan’s alleged role in Pahalgam. They ask for ‘proof’! The top diplomat of a friendly country apparently remarked a few days ago in a private conversation as an aside that the Pahalgam terrorists physically checking out the religion of their victims first is nothing new in the subcontinent, and cited Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan for reference.
What has Panda’s delegation brought home? Does it make a success story? A member of the delegation later told media in the mother of all quotes, “Every country we visited had already issued statements condemning the Pahalgam terror incident — these were reiterated by them in person to us.” But this is like reinventing the wheel.
Some profoundly troubling question arise here, especially as countdown has begun for the Shashi Tharoor moment in Washington. Tharoor also has a challenging mission. After all those decades in the UN where he handled public relations work, this must be a novel experience — to actually negotiate as a flag carrier.
Not a single senior US official is willing to name Pakistan so far — certainly, not Trump. They will wonder how this flashy neocon liberal from Delhi and an eloquent exponent of globalism in American publications all these years has shrunk and become a pale shadow of himself.
Who’s afraid of terrorism in 21st century? We are in an era where terrorism is becoming the preferred weapon to fight hybrid wars. Trump recently shook hands with the notoriously cruel ex-al Qaeda terrorist leader Ahmad al-Sharaa who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, underscoring that yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s key ally.
That al-Qaeda was actually a creation of the Americans is known to everybody but Trump proclaimed himself openly as an admirer of al-Sharaa, telling Gulf sheikhs at a GCC conclave in Riyadh on May 14 after shaking hands with the tall six-footer Syrian that “he’s a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” Trump added, “He’s got a real shot at holding it [Syria] together. He’s a real leader. He led a charge, and he’s pretty amazing.”
Trump had better be right in his optimism because his entire gambit of betting on an ex-al Qaeda ally to reshape West Asia is a risky venture funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar who’d see in all this by the time Trump becomes history a pathway to sow the germane seeds of a third Wahhabi state modelled after them in the cradle of Islamic civilisation.
In Ukraine too, terrorism is the preferred weapon for the Western powers to bleed Russia in their proxy war when in military technology and defence manufacturing industry they cannot match Russia’s, and they are no longer capable of fighting a continental war either. The stark message coming out of the attacks on Russian military assets two days ago with technical support from NATO satellites — and possibly Elon Musk’s Starlink — is that terrorism can be a game changer in geopolitics.
Therefore, all this global campaign by our government against Pakistan may have a good optic domestically as our media hypes it up dutifully, but what is the net gain for diplomacy? Even if the whole world were to now bracket Pakistan with the US, UK, Saudi Arabia or Qatar as yet another state sponsoring terrorism, so what? Who cares?
Today’s papers have reported that according to a list of chairs of the subsidiary bodies of the UN that monitor international terrorism, Pakistan holds responsible positions as co-chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council for 2025 and the Counter-terrorism Committee. Pakistan will also be the co-chair of the informal working groups on documentation and other procedural questions as well as the general UN Security Council sanctions issues.
How could the alleged epicentre of international terrorism be possibly a watchdog and decision-maker on counter-terrorism and sanctions in a world body? Clearly, international opinion ignores India’s diatribes against Pakistan, which is also currently an elected non-permanent member of the Security Council.
On the other hand, thanks to the Biden administration and Five Eyes, an impression gained ground in recent years that the Indian government is sponsoring assassination of political opponents abroad as a matter of statecraft. Not only have we suffered some ‘reputational damage,’ but the Pakistani claim that it too is a victim of terrorism gained traction. Countries seem to hyphenate India with Pakistan. It has become necessary for Delhi to disown responsibility when a train derails in Baluchistan or an improvised explosive device blows up a Pakistani army convoy or some notorious jihadi fellow meets with unnatural death on the streets of Lahore and Karachi.
This is becoming a vicious cycle which only helps to call attention to the unresolved Kashmir problem as posing threat to regional and international security. Put differently, ‘terrorism’ in the India-Pakistan context has become the objective co-relative of the Kashmir problem and Hindu-Muslim strife. Trump’s caustic remark about the millennial war speaks for itself.
It is high time that the ‘war on terror’ is removed from our diplomatic toolbox. Certainly, our parliamentarians have no role in it. As for the optics domestically, resort to some other means. By all means, meet terrorism with coercion — if that indeed helps. Deploy what Joseph Nye called ‘smart power’. But neither expect external support, nor canvass for it.
MAGA influencers want an Iran deal and for hawks to shut up
Trump is unlikely to pay any political price if he disregards the old guard’s unrealistic demands
By Ben Armbruster | Responsible Statecraft | May 19, 2025
Neocons and their allies in Washington, Israel, and beyond are making unrealistic demands about the outcome of U.S. talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. But President Trump has absolutely no reason to listen to them and should not take them seriously.
The anti-Iran deal campaign kicked into overdrive last week when Republicans on Capitol Hill sent a letter to the White House calling on Trump to refuse any agreement that doesn’t include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Every Republican senator except Rand Paul signed a letter to President Trump urging the administration to push for an end to Iran’s enrichment capacity,” Andrew Day, senior editor of the American Conservative, told RS. “They know that this demand is unacceptable to the Iranian regime and are clearly hoping to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic efforts.”
Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Sina Toossi called the letter’s demand “a poison pill.”
“Demanding zero enrichment, permanent restrictions, and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — after the U.S. already broke the 2015 deal — is not a negotiating position,” he told RS.
Meanwhile, other deal opponents say that Iran can be allowed to keep its program for civilian energy production purposes with the caveat that it cannot enrich its own uranium.
The good news for Trump though — and those who see an opportunity to box in Iran’s nuclear program and avoid war — is that this anti-Iran deal coalition has no constituency outside Washington and Israel, and Trump will pay very little to no political price if he just ignores them.
Take for instance a recent poll conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus in conjunction with the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program. That survey found that a large majority of Americans — 69% — favor “a negotiated agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful ends, with stringent monitoring” as opposed to military action. But perhaps more importantly for Trump’s political fortunes, 64% of Republicans surveyed — i.e. his base — agreed.
Opponents of diplomacy with Iran try to obfuscate this reality and muddy the waters. For example, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz — who’s been pushing for regime change in Iran for nearly two decades — promoted a poll last week finding that “76% of Americans say Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities should be destroyed.”
Of course there is one problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and thus no nuclear weapons facilities, a fact that the U.S. intelligence community routinely concludes.
But it’s not just the American people or the GOP base that support Trump making a deal with Iran. Some of the more high profile figures in the MAGA-America First world back him too.
“It’s called sanity,” Steve Bannon said last week, referring to the SSRS/UMaryland poll. Bannon, of course, served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first term and remains influential within his orbit and among his supporters.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who also has clout with Trump’s base, has been very vocal recently against going to war with Iran. “There is no wedge between the base and President Trump,” she said earlier this month. “The wedge is between Congress and the establishment Republicans that are undermining the president’s agenda.”
And conservative media star Tucker Carlson, who like Bannon, has close ties to Trump world and is influential with the president’s base, has been similarly calling out neocons and others who are trying to kill Trump’s diplomacy with Iran and push for war.
“Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country,” he said last month. “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Popular right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk has piled on as well. “[T]here are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it’d be easy. Just one strike in and out,” he said recently. “Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case?”
“President Trump has consolidated his power over the Republican Party to a remarkable degree and could certainly sign a good deal with Iran without suffering politically,” Day said. “The base still loves him, and lawmakers and conservative media are afraid of him. The elites would fall in line for fear of MAGA turning on them.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at NIAC, agrees. “Trump wouldn’t have been elected president twice if his foreign policy echoed the discredited views of the Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican party,” he said. “Trump can have a deal with Iran or he can be pushed into war by adopting rigid and inflexible demands — the vast majority of Americans want him to lead with diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, it appears increasingly unlikely that Democrats — most of whom supported President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal back in 2015 — will try to make much political hay with any agreement Trump makes with Tehran.
“This is not a time for politics on Iran,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in the House, said last week. “I support [Trump] trying to get a deal with Iran. I supported the Obama nuclear deal. How about we put the interest of our nation and peace above scoring political points at every moment?”
And what’s perhaps overlooked but maybe equally important: major regional powers like Saudi Arabia, who campaigned hard against Obama’s Iran deal, have changed their tune with Trump.
“Gulf leaders have been broadly supportive of the talks between the Trump administration and Iran because they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire of a regional escalation if they fail,” Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Middle East Eye last week. “That support doesn’t necessarily translate into success at the negotiating table but it’s a shift from the 2015 talks.”
Perhaps most importantly, Trump can get a deal with Iran that places strict limits on its nuclear program with incredibly intrusive verification mechanisms that will satisfy his stated goal of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, all without zero enrichment provisions or requiring Iran to dismantle its entire program.
“Not only will adopting a hardline ‘no enrichment’ position push Iran from the negotiating table entirely, it is not necessary for an effective agreement and would not fully address Iran’s proliferation risk,” the Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport wrote recently, adding that “dismantling the infrastructure does not erase the knowledge Iran has gained about uranium enrichment.”
In short, she concluded, the U.S. “can find the right combination of limits and monitoring to block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons while allowing Iran to retain a less risky level of uranium enrichment.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Iran Nuclear Negotiations Bring New, Suprising Developments
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2025
In the past several days, there have been surprising developments in the negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently, but not always, defined the goal of the negotiations as being limited to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He repeated that definition as recently as May 25, saying Iran must “permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons…They cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
But the message from his team has been contradictory. Then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the United States is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” Rubio said that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program, but by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67%, and no longer by enriching their own. On May 9, Witkoff told Breitbart News that “An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That’s our red line. No enrichment.”
But Iran has drawn the mirror image red line. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has placed a firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian repeated that red line ahead of the talks, insisting that “Iran has never sought, is not seeking, and will never seek nuclear weapons” but that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights.”
American insistence on ending Iran’s civilian enrichment program could put a quick end to the talks. Widening the negotiations to Iran’s missile program or to Iran’s relationship with its regional proxy groups could also jeopardize the talks.
But Trump raised that possibility on May 14 when he suggested that breaking off relations with proxy groups in the region must be part of any deal. Iran “must stop sponsoring terror,” he said, and “halt its bloody proxy wars.”
The contradictory statements emanating from the Trump administration appear to have been “because of a lack of decision on key strategic points,” Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on Iran, told me. And, indeed, on May 7, Trump said, “We haven’t made that decision yet.”
“As a result,” Parsi said, “the debate on these points is now, rather unhelpfully, taking place out in public.”
That the talks have progressed to a fourth meeting suggests, at this point, that the public crossing of these Iranian red lines may not be being repeated in the private meetings. Iran’s Foreign Minister hinted at that possibility when he identified one of the difficulties in the negotiations as being “contradictions both inside and outside the negotiating room.” Supporting this possibility, when Trump introduced Iran’s support of regional proxies into the discussion, Araghchi called the remark, not unproductive or unhelpful, but “deceitful.”
And Araghchi may know. Barak Ravid of Axios has now reported that, during the fourth round of talks, the United States presented Iran with a written proposal. The report says that, during the third round, Araghchi gave Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff a document with Iran’s proposals for a deal. The U.S. studied it and returned it to Iran with “questions and requests for clarifications.” Iran replied, the U.S. prepared a new proposal, and then presented it to Araghchi who has now brought it back to Tehran for consultations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian.
How far down the path to a settlement the proposal is is unknown. Araghchi said future negotiations now become more difficult. But he said that “despite the difficulty and frankness of the talks, very useful discussions were held.” He then said, “We can now say that both sides have a better understanding of each other’s positions.”
This major breakthrough may have been facilitated by another recent development: a subtle change in tone by Trump. Following a flurry of American threats, the fourth round of talks was postponed. Iranian officials said that [d]epending on the U.S. approach, the date of the next round of talks will be announced.”
Recently, that approach subtly changed. Previously, Donald Trump had formulated Iran’s choice as “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” But in his most recent remarks, which went largely unnoticed, Trump softened the consequence, saying only “If Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch…we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure, drive Iranian oil exports to zero.” Notably, bombing was replaced with sanctions.
On May 15, Trump again seemed to reject the risk of war:
“Because things like that get started and they get out of control. I’ve seen it over and over again. They go to war and things get out of control, and we’re not going to let that happen.”
In another surprise development, Iran may have facilitated negotiations with a creative and unexpected proposal.
There are now reports that Iran has suggested for consideration that they could join with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a nuclear enrichment consortium. Iran would continue to enrich uranium but accept a cap at the 3.67% enrichment required by a nuclear energy program. Saudi Arabia and UAE, who would gain access to Iran’s nuclear technology, would be shareholders and funders.
If true, the proposal would be based on a consortium idea first proposed by Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
Von Hippel told me that the idea was inspired by the URENCO enrichment consortium of Germany, the Netherlands and Britain and by the ABAAAC consortium of Brazil and Argentina.
The consortiums, he said, allow nuclear experts from each country to “visit each other’s facilities to assure themselves that the activities are peaceful.” He added that “decisions that might have proliferation implications are made by the [partner] governments.” Saudi Arabia’s, the Emirates’ and Iran’s watchful eyes would all help the International Atomic Energy Agency ensure that the program is peaceful.
Aside from the implications for the nuclear negotiations, this level of trust between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE was unthinkable only a very short time ago and testifies to the changes going on in the region and in the evolving Iran-Saudi Arabia relationship. That Iran would trust Saudi Arabia with access to its nuclear technology indicates that a region changing shift in the relationship is underway.
As Annelle Sheline, research fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, told me:
“The Iranians’ willingness to join a consortium with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to develop civilian nuclear energy demonstrates significantly improved relations between these countries. This sends a strong signal that Tehran as well as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi would prefer to prioritize cooperation over conflict.”
She said that all three countries have growing motivation for peace in the region. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman needs to avoid violent conflict to encourage the foreign investment and tourism needed to fuel his planned economic diversification. Mohammed bin Zayed needs economic security in the face of competition from Saudi Arabia to be a regional hub. Iran needs to encourage peace in the region because of the recent weakening of its own strategic position in the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran have recently been moving towards enhanced friendship both bilaterally and through multinational organizations.
Sheline expressed the hope to me that “Trump should take advantage of these circumstances to sign a nuclear deal with Iran and avoid unnecessary war.”
All of these developments, from the contradictory American messaging, to the until now unreported existence of a written proposal, to the subtle and little noticed change in Trump’s tone to the Iranian idea of a nuclear consortium with Saudi Arabia and UAE are shocking and new. They may present an opportunity to return to a nuclear agreement with Iran and to usher in a new hope for peace and friendly relations both between the U.S. and Iran and in the region. Hopefully, the two sides will seize this opportunity.
Are US-Israel ‘special relations’ about to end?
By Murad Sadygzade | RT | May 19, 2025
Last week, US President Donald Trump embarked on his first official overseas tour since taking office, choosing to visit three key Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
This itinerary was both unexpected and, in many ways, unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who traditionally began their foreign policy engagements with visits to long-standing Western allies, Trump opted to prioritize America’s Arab partners, deliberately bypassing Israel – Washington’s principal strategic ally in the region. This marked the first time in decades that a sitting US president visiting the Middle East consciously excluded it from the agenda.
This decision signaled a potential recalibration of Washington’s priorities in the region. Relations between the Trump administration and the Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were already strained in the early stages – largely due to Israel’s growing intransigence on the Palestinian question and the increasing influence of far-right factions within the Israeli government. Faced with mounting frustration over Israel’s hardline policies, the White House appeared to pivot toward a more pragmatic, less confrontational, and economically advantageous partnership with the Gulf monarchies.
However, the rationale behind this shift extended beyond political calculation. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have long played a pivotal role in sustaining American influence in the Middle East – not only because of their strategic geography but also due to their substantial investments in the US economy and multi-billion-dollar arms contracts. For a business-minded president eager to showcase the profitability of foreign policy through economic deals, these nations represented ideal counterparts.
The lavish receptions afforded to Trump during his Gulf tour might have been dismissed as mere pageantry were it not for their deeper symbolic resonance. The true significance of the visit lay in what it revealed about broader geopolitical currents: namely, the transformation of the Gulf monarchies from regional players into increasingly assertive global actors.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are no longer content with being perceived as passive participants in American-led regional frameworks. Instead, they are positioning themselves as independent centers of power in an emerging multipolar world order. Their growing international stature stems from several interrelated factors.
First, these countries have embraced ambitious and forward-looking development strategies, investing heavily in infrastructure, clean energy transitions, technological innovation, and global finance. No longer simply hydrocarbon exporters, they are becoming hubs of digital transformation, international logistics, Islamic finance, and global policy discourse on issues ranging from security to sustainable development.
Second, the Gulf states have pioneered a distinctive model of governance that blends traditionalism with modernization. While maintaining deep-rooted commitments to Islamic and tribal values, they have achieved remarkable progress in building diversified and globally competitive economies. This synthesis has not only enabled them to thrive amid intensifying global competition but, in some respects, to outpace certain Western nations grappling with internal divisions and economic stagnation.
Equally noteworthy is the political resilience of these monarchies. Western narratives often portray them simplistically as ‘absolute monarchies,’ failing to appreciate the internal mechanisms of governance that underpin their stability. In reality, the political architecture of the Gulf is more accurately described as ‘sheikhism’ – a system rooted in consensus among tribal and familial elites, structured around a balance of obligations, reciprocal loyalties, and ongoing consultation. This model, which integrates Islamic principles such as shura (consultation) with practical statecraft, has proven remarkably adaptive and resilient.
In this context, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar can no longer be viewed merely as privileged US allies or energy suppliers. They are emerging as autonomous actors in global politics – capable of forging regional alliances, shaping international agendas across energy, media, and technology, and mediating in global conflicts. Their evolving role reflects not dependence on external security guarantees, but the outcome of deliberate, long-term strategies to consolidate sovereignty, enhance prestige, and assert influence in the 21st century.
Money above all: Trump’s deal-based diplomacy
President Donald Trump’s visit to the Gulf states was far more than his first foreign trip as head of state. It was a bold, highly symbolic debut of a new US foreign economic doctrine rooted in pragmatism, transactionalism, and strategic capitalism. Unlike previous administrations, which typically foregrounded diplomacy, security alliances, and value-based partnerships, Trump approached this tour as a high-stakes business deal. His mindset was that of a dealmaker, not a traditional statesman. The objective was clear: to restore America’s economic dominance by leveraging the vast wealth and strategic ambitions of the Middle East’s richest monarchies.
Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” found tangible expression in this tour. His mission was to bring back jobs, reindustrialize key sectors, boost the US high-tech ecosystem, and enhance national competitiveness – all fueled by a surge in foreign direct investment. In this pursuit, the oil-rich, capital-heavy Gulf monarchies – endowed with massive sovereign wealth funds and seeking greater global visibility – emerged as ideal partners.
In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed an unprecedented economic package worth over $600 billion, including the largest arms deal in US history – $142 billion covering missile defense systems, advanced aviation platforms, cybersecurity capabilities, and military-grade AI technologies. Equally significant was the launch of a new tech alliance: Saudi-based DataVolt committed $20 billion to build data centers and energy facilities in the US, while a consortium led by Nvidia, AMD, and Amazon Web Services will co-develop an AI innovation hub within the Kingdom. A $50 billion venture fund was also established to support US-based startups in renewable energy and cybersecurity.
In Qatar, the results were even more staggering: agreements totaling $1.2 trillion, the largest single-country deal package in US diplomatic history. Central to this was Qatar Airways’ order for 210 Boeing aircraft valued at $96 billion, making it the most lucrative deal ever for the American aerospace giant. Qatar also pledged tens of billions of dollars for joint ventures in quantum computing, smart energy networks, and STEM education programs for engineers and IT specialists in the US. In a provocative symbolic gesture, Qatar proposed gifting President Trump a custom-built Air Force One, sparking intense debate in the American media landscape.
In the United Arab Emirates, new agreements totaling $200 billion were signed – in addition to a previously negotiated $1.4 trillion package. Key components included the construction of an aluminum plant in Oklahoma, expansion of oil and gas infrastructure with US firms, and a landmark $100 billion commitment to American companies specializing in artificial intelligence over the next three years.
In total, Trump’s Gulf tour yielded over $2 trillion in contracts and investment pledges – an economic windfall of historic proportions. But beyond the numbers, the trip marked a fundamental redefinition of American foreign policy: from projecting power through military force and ideological alignment, to securing influence through economic penetration and transactional partnerships. Trump unveiled a new image of the US – not as a global policeman, but as a global entrepreneur. A nation that negotiates not with declarations, but with data, contracts, and employment metrics.
This new model resonated deeply with the Gulf monarchies themselves, which are undergoing profound transformations. Once reliant solely on oil exports, these states are rapidly evolving into tech-driven economies with ambitions to become global hubs of innovation, finance, and logistics. In Trump’s America, they found not just a security guarantor, but a strategic co-architect of a post-oil economic order – one where capital, innovation, and mutual profit outweigh traditional diplomatic protocol and ideological rhetoric.
Trump’s message was unambiguous: the era of foreign policy as charity is over. What now matters are mutual returns, strategic alignments, and economic gains. The Gulf states, driven by their own visions of modernization and diversification, eagerly embraced this shift. Together, they reimagined international relations not as a sphere of obligations, but as a marketplace of opportunities.
What about Israel?
One of the most significant – albeit unofficial – outcomes of Donald Trump’s Middle East tour could be discerned even before the journey began: the US President conspicuously bypassed Israel. This omission became all the more striking given that even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who had initially planned a visit to Tel Aviv, abruptly cancelled his trip at the last moment. The message did not go unnoticed in either Washington or Jerusalem: nearly all observers interpreted the move as a clear sign of a cooling relationship between the US and Israel – more precisely, between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The rift between the two leaders appears less personal than strategic, rooted in diverging visions of the region’s future. Tensions had been mounting for months. The first major flashpoint came when Trump unilaterally announced the withdrawal of American forces from operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, citing the group’s supposed commitment to halt attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes. The decision, made without prior consultation with Israel – which continues to endure daily rocket fire from the Houthis – dealt a blow not only to diplomatic norms but also to the foundational trust between Israel and its closest ally.
An even more sensitive issue has been the quiet resumption of US contacts with Iran. With Oman acting as mediator, Washington has been exploring the outlines of a possible new nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, Israel remains steadfast in its conviction that no negotiations with Tehran should occur until decisive military action is taken against its nuclear and military facilities – a show of force intended to compel concessions. Netanyahu failed to persuade Trump of this hardline approach, and the US president has increasingly charted his own, more flexible course.
Tensions have also sharpened over the future of Syria. Israel refuses to recognize the country’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, branding him a former al-Qaeda affiliate and a dangerous actor. Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory continue, the buffer zone in the Golan Heights remains under Israeli control, and the Druze population has formally been placed under Israeli protection. While Israel promotes the vision of a weak, decentralized Syria, Washington is embracing the opposite: al-Sharaa was invited to meet with Trump in Saudi Arabia, and following those talks, the US signaled its intent to lift sanctions on Damascus. Even more striking was the revelation that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE – previously restrained by US pressure – are now prepared to invest in Syria’s reconstruction, viewing it as both a stabilizing opportunity and a chance to expand their regional influence.
Israeli frustration has been further stoked by Washington’s evolving stance on the Palestinian issue. Despite Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza, Trump has increasingly expressed a desire – even a demand – for a resolution to the conflict. His Gaza reconstruction plan, unveiled in February, sent shockwaves through Washington: it proposed the complete depopulation of Palestinians from the enclave and the transformation of the territory into a luxury international resort zone under US control. Not only was this radical proposal never coordinated with Israel, but it also raised fundamental questions about the future of the US-Israel alliance.
To make matters more complex, credible reports have emerged that the US has been engaged in direct negotiations with Hamas, without informing Israel. The recent release of an American citizen, IDF soldier Idan Alexander, who was captured in October 2023, was reportedly achieved through these covert channels – of which the Israeli government only became aware through its own intelligence services.
Against this backdrop, speculation is growing that the White House is seriously considering formally recognizing an independent Palestinian state. Such a move would not be a mere diplomatic gesture – it would reshape the strategic architecture of the Middle East. Should Washington proceed down this path, Israel could find itself in strategic isolation, while the center of regional gravity shifts toward Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Türkiye – countries with which Trump is building pragmatic, mutually beneficial, and business-driven relations.
None of these states demand unconditional support from Washington, meddle in its internal politics, or leverage domestic crises for influence. More importantly, they offer Trump what he values most: investment, trade, strategic partnership based on reciprocal interest, and freedom from ideological constraints.
Thus, a new geopolitical reality is taking shape before our eyes. In this emerging landscape, Donald Trump appears less inclined to view Israel as an indispensable ally and more drawn to politically agile, economically potent, and regionally assertive actors across the Arab world – and Türkiye. If rumors of Palestinian state recognition prove true, it will mark the end of the long-standing era of “special relations” between the US and Israel and signal the dawn of a new chapter in American Middle East policy – one governed not by ideological loyalty, but by unambiguous political and economic rationality.
Murad Sadygzade is President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
Iran’s Bold Nuclear Deal 2.0?
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 14.05.2025
After the US unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nucleal deal in May 2018, subsequent efforts to revive the agreement have largely stalled.
Iran has suggested a joint nuclear enrichment project with US investments and regional Arab nations – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi offered the idea as an alternative to US demand for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program during the recent talks with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman, the New York Times reports.
Iran would use the venture to enrich uranium to a low grade, beneath the levels needed for nuclear weapons.
Representatives from other countries, including the US, will be on the ground to provide “oversight and involvement.”
Israel issues warning over Palestine recognition
RT | May 12, 2025
Israel will respond to any nations who move to unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has claimed.
Saar issued the warning at a joint press conference with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, on Sunday, following announcements by several countries of their intent to recognize Palestine.
The Israeli diplomat claimed that any such unilateral moves would undermine prospects for the peace process and would compel the Jewish state to take measures in response.
Palestine’s sovereignty is recognized by 147 countries, including Russia and the majority of nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. However, most Western European countries, as well as Israel and the US, do not officially consider Palestine a sovereign state. Many nations have advocated for Palestinian recognition as the only way to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, which escalated in 2023 when Israel launched a military operation in Gaza following a surprise Hamas attack.
Saar claimed such initiatives were “not constructive but counterproductive” and served “as a prize for Hamas terror.”
Wadephul, however, said that a two-state solution remained “the best chance for Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, security, and dignity.”
The Media Line news outlet reported on Sunday, citing unnamed diplomatic sources, that US President Donald Trump could formally recognize the state of Palestine at the upcoming Gulf-US summit in Saudi Arabia.
Although US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has denied any such plans, speculation has grown in the wake of comments Trump made earlier this month in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Trump repeatedly hinted at “a very, very big announcement about a certain subject,” which he said would be revealed either before or during his upcoming trip to the Middle East.
Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron indicated that Paris could move to recognize a Palestinian state as early as June, during a United Nations conference in New York.
Russia has long advocated for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, reaffirming its stance during a recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Moscow. Russia has also called for an immediate end to the violence in Gaza.
Iran, Saudi Arabia foreign ministers discuss key bilateral, regional developments
Press TV – May 10, 2025
The top diplomats of Iran and Saudi Arabia met to discuss key issues related to bilateral relations, as well as regional and international developments.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, upon arriving in Jeddah on Saturday. His visit to Saudi Arabia is part of Tehran’s ongoing policy of strengthening ties with neighboring countries.
During the meeting, Araghchi also signed the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s memorial book.
Araghchi urged the Muslim world to take action to confront threats and challenges, including putting an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and preventing a conspiracy to annihilate Palestine in a colonial manner.
The top Iranian negotiator updated his Saudi counterpart on the latest developments regarding the Tehran-Washington indirect talks.
The Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers expressed the two countries’ determination to promote their common goal of expanding mutual relations in all fields.
On Friday, Araghchi announced that the fourth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States will take place in Oman on Sunday.
His regional tour includes a visit to Qatar later on Saturday as part of his diplomatic engagements.
Speaking in an interview on Friday, Araghchi said his visit to Saudi Arabia would be in line with consultations between the two countries about regional issues and indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States.
He added that since the beginning of the talks in April, Iran has been in constant contact with regional countries to inform them about the process.
“The sustainability of any potential agreement largely depends on the considerations and concerns of the regional countries regarding the nuclear issue and their common interests with the Islamic Republic,” the Iranian foreign minister emphasized.
Mediated by Oman, Iran and the US have held three rounds of talks in the Omani capital of Muscat and the Italian capital of Rome on April 12, 19, and 26, with the aim of reaching a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of sanctions on Tehran.
Both parties have so far expressed satisfaction with the way the negotiations are moving on, praising the talks as “positive” and “moving forward.”
A fourth round of the talks was scheduled to be held on May 3 in Muscat but was postponed for “logistical and technical reasons,” as cited by the Iranian foreign minister.
Featured Video
The Great DIABETES DECEPTION – Why Treatment FAILS, While $$ MADE
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Ways of the Jewish Slave Traders
NOI RESEARCH GROUP • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 8, 2024
“As Mr. Yakub continued to preach for converts, he told his people that he would make the others work for them. (This promise came to pass.) Naturally, there are always some people around who would like to have others do their work. Those are the ones who fell for Mr. Yakub’s teaching, 100 per cent.” — The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, chapter 55 of Message to the Blackman in America titled “The Making of Devil”
“Three blessings a Jewish man is obligated to pray daily: ‘(Blessed art Thou,) Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; and Who did not make me a slave.’” — Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b–44a
The story of the Jewish American experience that most Jews want to believe, and want the world to believe, is one of almost endless historical victimhood. They insist that they fled anti-Semitic oppression in Europe, landing safely on Ellis Island long after the Civil War’s end in 1865, and certainly some did. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch…
Aletho News- The Great DIABETES DECEPTION – Why Treatment FAILS, While $$ MADE
- Israeli forces arrest writer and political researcher Sari Orabi
- Hamas calls for ‘impartial international probe’ into Al-Aqsa Flood operation
- The architecture of extermination: Why the Gaza genocide is premeditated and repeatable
- Israeli-UAE Aggression In Yemen Could Backfire Enormously
- German journalist says she was sexually assaulted in Israeli custody
- Moscow accuses Bloomberg of spreading ‘fake news’
- Nigeria rebuffs Trump’s persecution narrative despite US coordination
- SANCTIONED: Col Jacques Baud Explains Being the EU’s TARGET
- Fuel rationing chaos looms in New York State
- If Americans Knew
- Christmas in the grip of genocide, occupation – Not a Ceasefire Day 77
- Palestinian Christians offer “Kairos,” an alternative Christmas Day sermon – Not a Ceasefire Day 76
- The Faces of AIPAC: the largest pro-Israel lobbying org in the US
- Gazan Christians mark 3rd Christmas under genocide – Not a Ceasefire Day 75
- Israeli scams children with cancer out of millions fundraised for their treatment, BBC finds
- Casey Kennedy Fired from AG Scientific Amid Zionist Troll Campaign Over Track AIPAC Work
- The Hasmoneans: The Jewish Dynasty That Gave Us Hanukkah Is a Symbol of Murder, Not Heroism and Hope
- Int’l NGOs may be blocked from Gaza starting Jan. 1 – Not a Ceasefire Day 74
- From Churches to ChatGPT: Israeli Contracts Worth Millions Aim to Influence U.S. Public Opinion
- Who is the Pro-Israel Clique behind TikTok’s US Takeover?
- No Tricks Zone
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
Aletho News 