Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK joining US-led Israeli war on Iran would be illegal, says Attorney General

MEMO | June 19, 2025

The UK’s participation in a potential US-led attack on Iran on behalf of Israel could be unlawful, according to legal advice issued to Prime Minister Keir Starmer by Attorney General Lord Hermer. The warning, reported in The Telegraph, sharply limits Britain’s ability to support military action and presents a political headache for Starmer, who is under pressure to back Washington while avoiding another illegal war reminiscent of Iraq.

Hermer, who was recently appointed as Attorney General and is a close ally of Starmer, has issued legal advice stating that any UK military involvement must be strictly limited to defensive actions, namely protecting allies, rather than participating in direct offensive operations against Iran. One official who reviewed the legal opinion remarked: “The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.”

This caution comes as speculation grows that US President Donald Trump may order strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, using American stealth bombers and joint US-UK bases such as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. While the UK retains sovereign control over the base, any US offensive would require British authorisation.

The legal advice presents a major political dilemma for Starmer. A committed Atlanticist, the UK prime minister has signalled strong support for US-Israeli interests, but any attempt to bypass legal scrutiny in backing a unilateral military campaign may undermine his government’s legitimacy at home and abroad. Comparisons are already being drawn to Tony Blair’s controversial decision to join the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a war widely deemed illegal by international legal experts and condemned for bypassing the UN Security Council.

Israel’s unprovoked bombing campaign inside Iran, has killed over 300 civilians. Israel’s own justification—that its strikes are defensive—is not accepted under international law unless there is an imminent threat. Any UK participation in such operations could therefore violate its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.

Meanwhile, the British government appears to be stepping back from immediate escalation. “We want to de-escalate rather than escalate,” a No. 10 spokesperson said. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has flown to Washington for urgent talks, while Defence Secretary John Healey is said to be reviewing contingency plans for RAF involvement.

Starmer’s government has authorised the deployment of six additional Typhoon fighter jets to Cyprus, with preparations underway to expand UK capacity in the Gulf. However, sources say no final decision has been made regarding the potential use of Diego Garcia.

The warnings come as Trump threatens what he described as a “very big” response to Iran’s missile attacks on Israel. Iran, in turn, has vowed to resist any foreign aggression, rejecting calls for surrender.

Legal experts say the Starmer government must avoid repeating the mistakes of the Iraq war. Any military action outside the bounds of self-defence or without UN Security Council approval is illegal.

June 19, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Excess deaths 2025

Dr. John Campbell | May 28, 2025

Excess mortality: Deaths from all causes compared to average over previous years

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

1 January 2020 until 31 December 2022

47 countries of the Western World, 3, 098, 456

Excess mortality

2021, 42 countries

2022, 43 countries

Conclusions

Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years

This raises serious concerns.

Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.

2015–2019 compared to 2020–2024

Percentage difference between the reported weekly or monthly deaths in 2020–2024 and the average deaths in the same period in 2015–2019

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline

Correlation and causality

Smoking is correlated with lung cancer

Asbestos exposure is correlated with mesothelioma

Alcohol consumption is associated with liver cirrhosis

Obesity is correlated with high sugar intake

Radiation exposure is correlated with cancer

Dioxin exposure is correlated with cancer

Causality may be adjudicated by larger scale associations, consistent between countries, where other explanations are unlikely, where effect follows cause, where greater exposure causes more harm with a plausible biological mechanism with coherence between bench science and epidemiological data supported by (even limited) experimentation. By analogy to other causes of harm and sometimes by reversibility.

https://drjohncampbell.co.uk/

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , | Leave a comment

World on the brink of new nuclear arms race – report

Israel is among the nations “believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal,” the Stockholm-based SIPRI institute has said

RT | June 17, 2025

The world risks plunging into a “new dangerous arms race” as most nuclear powers seek to modernize and expand their arsenals, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has warned in its annual review.

The pace of disarmament is slowing as nuclear-armed states launch “intensive” arsenal modernization programs, the research center said in a paper published on Monday.

Russia and the US, which together possess around 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world, are set to see the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty – the New START – expire in February 2026, SIPRI noted. The agreement limits the number of simultaneously deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023, citing the impracticality of the inspection regime due to deep Western involvement in the Ukraine conflict. However, it maintained that it remained open to dialogue on the issue if the arsenals of Washington’s NATO allies were also considered.

Washington, meanwhile, insists on including China in any new agreement. According to SIPRI, China possesses the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world and could rival “either Russia or the USA” in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles by the end of the decade.

The UK and France are also modernizing their nuclear forces, focusing on nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the report said. Paris additionally aims to develop a new ballistic missile warhead.

“The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end,” said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program. “We see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”

The research institute also listed Israel among the nations “believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal.” While Israel does not officially acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons, SIPRI pointed to tests of new missile propulsion systems and alleged upgrades at the plutonium production reactor site in Dimona.

West Jerusalem could have up to 90 nuclear warheads at its disposal, the report stated. The findings come as Israel conducts air raids against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, claiming Tehran is nearing the creation of a nuclear bomb. Iran, which maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, was not mentioned in the SIPRI report.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Italy and Germany on the War Front

By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | June 16, 2025

Italy and Germany are at war not only against Russia in support of Ukraine, but also against Iran in support of Israel. This is demonstrated by documented facts. These facts are ignored by the political-media mainstream.

The Italian B350ER aircraft – a new-generation aircraft for espionage, target recognition and communication operations – operates in the Black Sea together with similar US aircraft to spy on Russian territory and assist Ukrainian forces to strike Russian targets with unmanned drones and explosive vessels. Italy is thus not only supplying weapons to Kiyv but is actively participating in this and other ways in the NATO war against Russia. Even more direct is Germany’s participation in the war: it has permanently stationed a 5,000-strong Bundeswehr brigade in Lithuania, equipped with 2,000 tanks and other military vehicles.

“With this combat-ready brigade,” states German Defence Minister Pistorius, “we are taking on a leadership responsibility within the Alliance here on NATO’s Eastern Flank”.

Thus, NATO has deployed its forces on the borders with Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia’s ally Belarus. At the same time, two other NATO countries — the United Kingdom and Canada — are deploying their ++forces in Estonia and Latvia, which also border Russia. These forces are like a candle lit in a powder keg. According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, if NATO forces suffer losses in a clash with Russian forces on the border, all other NATO countries would have to intervene on their side against Russia. The Trump Administration’s role is becoming increasingly equivocal, as it states that it wants to agree with Russia on a diplomatic solution to end the war. Yet, it is helping Ukraine to continue the war against Russia, either directly through military operations such as those in the Black Sea, or indirectly through NATO, which, under US command, is bringing its military forces ever closer to Russia.

As part of the same strategy, Germany and Italy play a significant role in supporting Israel in the Middle East. After the USA, Germany is the second-largest supplier of weapons to Israel. So far, Israel has received six Dolphin-class submarines from Germany, manufactured by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. These submarines have been modified to launch nuclear attack missiles. According to an agreement in 2022, Germany will supply Israel with three more Drakon-class submarines, which are larger than the previous models and can launch even more powerful nuclear missiles. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons, and, as it has not joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not subject to any control. Iran, having joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has civil nuclear facilities that are subject to UN Atomic Energy Agency controls.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Middle East in Crisis – 2

Netanyahu’s war on Iran has no future

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 16, 2025 

An unnoticed undercurrent of the Israel-Iran war is that three Christian nations in Europe — UK, France and Germany — have joined the fray with alacrity on the side of Israel.  

Strange, isn’t it, that these European countries comprising the so-called E-3 have a well-established exclusive path of dialogue with Iran but are joining Israel’s warpath? It’s a Crusade, stupid! 

The three ‘Crusader nations’ share Israel’s obsession to check the rise of a Muslim nation as an emerging power in the Middle East that could radically transform its geopolitical alignments. Simply put, destroying the Islamic regime in Iran is the real objective of Israel’s war — and of the three Christian nations from Europe. 

Reportedly, Israeli fighter jets which attacked Iran used the British air base in Cyprus; British refuelling planes are on deployment in Syrian-Iraqi airspace for use of Israeli fighter jets; French president Emmanuel Macron, as defender of Roman Catholicism openly vows that he will act to prevent Israel’s defeat; Germany, the fountainhead of Protestantism, has also similarly positioned itself behind Israel. 

However, on the other hand, what emerges from the hour-long phone conversation between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday is that they will work together to advance the path of dialogue with Iran, the current conflict situation notwithstanding. The Kremlin readout stresses that Putin forcefully denounced the Israeli aggression. 

Such a line-up of the principal actors signals that Israel’s best bet lies in killing the war itself as a strategic error and create a ‘new normal’? But will Tehran allow Netanyahu to get away with murder? That’s the million dollar question. Putin will have to use all his persuasive power during the planned visit to Iran — ie., if it still goes ahead. 

The Israeli thinking behind its assassination of the IRGC leadership and military commanders stemmed out of the foolish miscalculation that Tehran lacks a political will to resist aggression. The Israeli objective is on the one hand to create conditions for a regime change in Iran and on the other hand to derail any form of US-Iran constructive engagement.

All through, terror has been the chosen weapon for Israel and the western powers to undermine and weaken Iran. But a point has been reached where a containment of Iran is no longer feasible. Logically, Iran’s neighbours in the Muslim world should have rallied in support of Iran but that’s too much to expect, given their limited sovereignty to act independently. 

Nonetheless, Iran will not capitulate. Iran’s sense of national pride and honour as a civilisation state will prompt it to circle the wagons and wage a protracted war until victory. From the early days of the revolution, the Islamic republic which was founded on the principles of justice and resistance on the bedrock of nationalism and independence, got attracted to Mao’s concept of ‘protracted people’s war’ to keep predator nations at bay. That strategy paid off during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). 

Saddam Hussein too, like Netanyahu, miscalculated that Iran was a hopelessly weakened nation in the civil war conditions with its economy in virtual collapse, army in disarray, state formation yet to crystallise, and with no allies in the region to lend a helping hand. But as it turned out, Iran fought an 8-year war defiantly to a stalemate, undeterred by the lavish support extended to Saddam by the Western powers and their regional allies. 

The US even equipped Saddam’s army with chemical weapons to stop the human-wave–attack tactics of Iranian fighters, but of no avail — although, an estimated quarter million Iranians sacrificed their lives.  

At some point, in a very near future, Israel will also meet the fate of Saddam, having miscalculated Iran’s grit to resist. Netanyahu also estimated that Iran is a much weakened country compared to last year due to the setbacks taken by the Axis of Resistance. Such naïveté underestimates the potency of resistance at the very core of Shi’ism. 

Last week, the resistance forces that were supposedly vanquished from the face of the earth regrouped and began firing missiles at Israel — from Syria, of all places! On May 4, Houthis fired a ballistic missile at Tel Aviv hitting the perimeter of the main terminal of Ben Gurion Airport! Reports suggest that Hezbollah has restored its supply routes from Iran.  

What Israel fails to grasp is that resistance movements do not die if their raison d’être remains. Israel is, in reality, in very deep crisis fighting on multiple fronts amidst a cascading domestic political crisis and an economy that requires drip feeding by Washington. 

As the US’s capacity to influence events in the Middle East keeps diminishing, Israel’s unviability as a nation propped by the Jewish Lobby in the Beltway appears sharper in focus. Already, there is resentment within the US about bankrolling Israel and fighting its wars.

On the contrary, the rise of Iran is inevitable — with a population base 10 times bigger than Israel’s, vast mineral resources, a self-sufficient agricultural sector and broad-based industry, innovative progress in technology, big domestic market, highly strategic location and trained manpower. 

Iran’s stamina is of a long distance runner, as Iran-Iraq war showed, whereas, Israel’s forte is as sprinter on a 100 metre track. Make no mistake, Israel, a small country with a population of 8 million people will get hollowed out in a protracted war. 

In the current scenario, what goes against Israel critically is that while President Donald Trump tried and failed to stop Netanyahu on the warpath, he is not going to deploy American forces to fight Israel’s war. 

Trump has an evangelical base in US politics and is on friendly terms with wealthy Jewish donors, but has nothing in common with the Crusader nations of the Old World — be it on Ukraine or Iran. In both cases, actually, he tends to view the paradigm through the America First prism where he sees immense potential to generate wealth through business links with Russia or Iran. 

Besides, Trump is far too smart a politician to risk the future of his MAGA movement whose core tenet is the total rejection of all interventionist ‘forever wars’. Trump knows only too well that American public opinion is staunchly opposed to Middle Eastern wars.

The replacement of Mike Waltz as NSA on May 1 (a known Israeli proxy who found himself in the top echelons of Trump administration) and the subsequent purge of the entire pack of ‘Iran hawks’ in the National Security staff under him, signalled that Trump is wary of Netanyahu’s diabolical plots to derail his negotiations with Iran through back channels. (here and here)   

During their phone conversation on Saturday, according to the Kremlin readout, Trump and Putin agreed to prioritise the “negotiating track in Iran’s nuclear programme… Trump noted, the team of US negotiators is ready for resuming work with Iranian representatives.” Clearly, a military confrontation with Iran does not figure in Trump’s calculus. 

That being the case, Netanyahu’s bombastic rhetoric apart, Israel’s best interests lie in ending this futile war in the quickest way possible. Conceivably, that is also the preference of the IDF. A protracted war on its own steam with a clutch of crusader nations in tow as cheer leaders is not something that can save Israel from destruction.

Curiously, Trump in his latest Truth Social post on Sunday after the conversation with Putin advised Israel “to make a deal” with Iran! Does that fit into Netanyahu’s war mongering? And Trump went on to burnish his own credentials as a peacemaker president! 

Trump concluded predicting that “we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran!” Succinctly put, Trump has no intentions whatsoever to risk American lives by fighting Netanyahu’s wars.  

Obviously, “PEACE, soon” will be Russia and Iran’s preference too, as serious negotiations can be resumed and agreement reached that would herald a US-Iran normalisation and the lifting of American  sanctions. But does that suit Netanyahu? 

The paradox is, Israel has no future in a protracted war with Iran, but an inconclusive end to this war will pose the high risk for Netanyahu of a cascading demand for a regime change in Israel. Loss of power means loss of parliamentary immunity from prosecution that Netanyahu hitherto enjoyed from corruption charges against him and his family members, and a possible imprisonment.

Read moreIran Attack: Netanyahu Gambles Big, Rediff.com, June 14, 2025

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK moving jets to Middle East for ‘contingency support in the region’

Al Mayadeen | June 14, 2025

The United Kingdom is sending additional fighter jets and support aircraft to the Middle East as part of what Prime Minister Keir Starmer described as “contingency support” for the region, following Israel’s deadly strikes on Iran.

Speaking en route to the G7 summit in Canada, Starmer reiterated calls for de-escalation but stopped short of ruling out military support for “Israel”. Asked whether British forces could be involved in defending “Israel” against Iranian retaliation, he said, “I will always make the right decisions for the UK,” adding, “We are moving assets to the region, including jets, and that is for contingency support in the region.”

Downing Street confirmed the move includes additional fast jets and refueling aircraft joining existing UK deployments. Preparations reportedly began Friday, just hours after Israeli forces launched a wave of airstrikes targeting senior Iranian military leaders and nuclear facilities.

Pressed further on the UK’s potential involvement in countering Iranian missiles or drones, Starmer declined to offer specifics, “These are obviously operational decisions and the situation is ongoing and developing, and therefore I’m not going to get into the precise details. But we are moving assets… and that is for contingency support across the region.”

No word on prior knowledge of Israeli strikes

The UK government has not confirmed whether it had prior knowledge of the Israeli operation, although Starmer indicated coordination was taking place: “I’m not going to go into what information we had at the time or since… there’s a constant flow of information between our allies, and between us and the US.”

The prime minister also revealed that he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump, and other world leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“I suspect that when we get to the G7 there will be many other exchanges of views on an intense basis,” Starmer said. “We do have longstanding concerns about the nuclear programme that Iran has, and we do recognise Israel’s right to self-defence. But I am absolutely clear that this needs to de-escalate. There’s a huge risk to escalation for the region and more widely in terms of conflict. We have seen the impact already on the economy and oil prices.”

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary David Lammy also spoke with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi, echoing Starmer’s message for restraint, “We’re having ongoing discussions with our allies all of the time,” Starmer said, “Our constant message is de-escalate.”

Diplomatic Collapse

The Iranian Foreign Ministry declared further nuclear negotiations with the US “pointless” under these conditions, asserting that “Israel’s hostile measures against Iran were the result of Washington’s direct support for the regime.”

Oman has since confirmed the cancellation of the Muscat talks, reflecting the collapse of diplomacy under Western duplicity.

As Iran reaffirms its legitimate right to self-defense under international law, the UK’s actions suggest not neutrality but strategic complicity.

The Islamic Republic continues to urge the international community to abandon double standards and take a principled stance against “Israel’s” lawless aggression.

June 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western hypocrisy: ‘Israel’ bombs Iran, Tehran told not to retaliate

Al Mayadeen | June 13, 2025

Top Western leaders have called for restraint in the wake of the ongoing Israeli aggression on Iranian territory. Brutal strikes targeted military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure and led to multiple casualties. Yet, while urging de-escalation, these leaders have largely avoided condemning “Israel’s” violation of international law, choosing instead to direct their diplomatic pressure on Tehran not to retaliate.

The double standard is stark: while Iran has consistently operated within the framework of international law and the UN Charter, the Israeli entity has carried out cross-border aggression with impunity. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has a recognized legal right to self-defense, a point conspicuously absent from most Western statements.

Europe avoids accountability for ‘Israel’

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called the situation, not Israeli attacks, “dangerous” and appealed for restraint from “all sides”, despite Iran being the target of the aggression. Kallas, who reportedly spoke with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar shortly after the attack, did not denounce the strikes or the violations of Iranian sovereignty.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed the vague language, urging parties to “exercise maximum restraint, de-escalate immediately, and refrain from retaliation.” The call placed the burden on Iran to avoid a response, while the Israeli entity’s unlawful actions were met with silence.

On his part, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani both stressed the need for “diplomacy”, but neither condemned the unilateral Israeli aggression. Tajani stated, “There is no solution but a diplomatic one. Actions and reactions are dangerous,” drawing false parity between attacker and victim.

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a special defense meeting but offered no criticism of “Israel’s” blatant breach of international norms.

Australia and NATO echo the US line

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking from Fiji, framed the issue around Iran’s nuclear program rather than the illegal nature of the Israeli strike. “We are very conscious of the threat that Iran becoming a nuclear state would represent,” he said, further aligning with Washington’s narrative. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs updated travel advisories, urging Australians to leave “Israel” and the occupied Palestinian territories.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, while warning of escalation, also avoided assigning blame, waving the “de-escalation” card for vague purposes.

“De-escalation is now the first order of the day,” he said, reflecting a Western consensus that implicitly tolerates Israeli militarism while expecting Iranian restraint.

Walking a delicate line

Former US President Donald Trump confirmed that he had been briefed ahead of the strikes and stated, “Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb. We are hoping to get back to the negotiating table,” again shifting the narrative away from Israeli accountability.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the United States had no involvement in the strikes but issued a warning to Tehran, “Israel took unilateral action against Iran,” and any retaliation must not target US interests.

“We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Rubio said in an official statement. “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense, Rubio added, although it was “Israel” that always initiated attacks against the Islamic Republic.

“Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel,” Rubio said, without addressing whether Washington would defend “Israel” in the event of Iranian retaliation, departing from traditional US messaging that often emphasizes unwavering support for the Israeli regime. This support came directly from the US president himself, who rushed to “Israel’s” rescue.

‘Both sides’ should avoid further destabilization

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer labeled the attacks “concerning” but urged all sides to reduce tensions, stopping short of condemning the aggression.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who received a direct call from Netanyahu, affirmed “Israel’s” so-called right to “self-defense” and echoed longstanding Western concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. He, too, urged both sides to avoid further destabilization, without acknowledging who initiated the escalation.

Tehran maintains right to self-defense

Iranian officials have underscored that the Islamic Republic has not initiated the war and that its actions have consistently adhered to international law. Tehran has emphasized that its right to respond is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, asserting that “Israel’s” continued violations of international law, coupled with Western silence, further undermine the credibility of global institutions.

The widespread Western calls for restraint, directed almost exclusively at Iran, highlight a longstanding hypocrisy: that Israeli violations of international law are tolerated, while Iranian sovereignty and legal rights are dismissed or ignored.

It is worth noting that this is happening as Oman was planning to host the sixth round of US‑Iran nuclear talks this Sunday in Muscat.

Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to carve a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018.

Iran has always reiterated its commitment to diplomacy while upholding its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, while the West has manipulated the agency to serve geopolitical goals.

It is worth noting that Iranian media outlets on Thursday published a series of documents that reveal covert coordination between IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and “Israel”, a collaboration Iranian officials say was designed to politicize the agency’s oversight of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

June 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran condemns ‘biased’ IAEA, announces enrichment countermeasures

Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2025

Iran has sharply rejected a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, accusing it of being “politically driven” and “biased”. In a joint statement released Thursday by the Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Iranian officials condemned the resolution and unveiled a series of countermeasures aimed at accelerating the country’s nuclear program.

This comes shortly after the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution against Iran on Thursday, claiming Iran was in breach of non-proliferation obligations. The vote passed with 19 countries voting in favor, 3 opposing, and 11 abstaining, according to diplomats cited by Reuters. Two countries were absent and thus did not vote.

The resolution, marking the first formal accusation in nearly two decades that Iran has violated its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, was passed during a closed-door session of the 35-member board. The move, described as “politically motivated” by Iranian officials, was initiated by the United States along with the E3, Britain, France, and Germany.

IAEA resolution lacks ‘neutrality’

The joint statement asserted that Iran remains committed to its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, adding that no IAEA report to date has ever confirmed any deviation or non-compliance. Iranian authorities described the IAEA’s latest move as lacking “neutrality” and being manipulated by Western powers, particularly the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, to pursue geopolitical goals.

In a direct response, Iran announced the activation of a new uranium enrichment facility at a secure site and plans to upgrade the Fordow nuclear plant by replacing older centrifuges with sixth-generation advanced models.

Iran blasts Western double standards on nuclear disarmament

Iranian officials criticized the IAEA and its Western backers for what they described as selective enforcement of nuclear obligations. The joint statement accused the US and its European allies of reviving “25-year-old allegations” that had already been settled under the 2015 nuclear deal, while turning a blind eye to “Israel’s” undeclared nuclear arsenal and refusal to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

“The United States, Britain, and France have failed to comply with Article VI of the NPT regarding nuclear disarmament,” the statement read, adding that Germany remains in possession of “inhumane weapons of mass destruction.”

Iran further warned that continued political maneuvering within the IAEA would render any future engagement futile. “This political approach toward Iran, which has always honored its obligations and cooperated extensively with the Agency, forces us to conclude that the path of engagement and cooperation is futile,” the statement asserted.

Iran thanks allies opposing the resolution 

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, strongly condemned the resolution passed Thursday by the IAEA Board of Governors, calling it a politically motivated effort by Western powers to undermine the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

Baghaei specifically denounced the role of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, accusing them of exploiting the IAEA to “cast doubt on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”

He firmly rejected the allegations outlined in the resolution, which he said were based on “baseless and unfounded claims” and stemmed from a political report by the IAEA Director General. The resolution, jointly submitted by the four Western states, was described as “an unjustified, groundless, and cruel move,” aimed at exerting “maximum pressure on Iran to deviate from the legitimate rights and interests of the Iranian people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”

Baghaei warned that those behind the resolution will be held accountable for its repercussions. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will take proportionate measures in response to this move to secure and protect the interests and inalienable rights of the Iranian nation in benefiting from peaceful nuclear energy,” he said.

He also expressed deep concern over the conduct of the IAEA Director General, criticizing his public statements and what he described as provocative interviews on Iran’s nuclear activities. Baghaei accused the agency chief of undermining the organization’s neutrality, stating that he “must adhere to his missions and duties in accordance with the Agency’s statute.”

Furthermore, the Iranian diplomat extended gratitude to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Belarus for issuing a joint statement rejecting the resolution. He praised their “responsible and legal positions” and reaffirmed the Iranian nation’s determination to defend its rights and interests as outlined in the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran’s IAEA representative Najafi slams politicized resolution 

Iran’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Reza Najafi, strongly criticized the agency’s recent resolution against Iran, denouncing it as politically motivated and based on unreliable sources. Speaking on Thursday, Najafi warned that such moves undermine the IAEA’s credibility and threaten the rights of member states under its founding charter.

Najafi emphasized that any draft resolution brought forward by the Board of Governors should rely strictly on unbiased, verifiable evidence, not intelligence supplied by specific states with vested interests. “Basing reports on questionable or politicized information undermines the agency’s objectivity,” he stated, in clear reference to data provided by Western governments and the Israeli occupation.

US current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent

He warned that the United States’ current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent, one that could erode trust and cooperation between the agency and its member states. Najafi asserted that such behavior contradicts the IAEA’s stated commitment to impartiality and transparency.

Reaffirming Iran’s position, Najafi made it clear that the Islamic Republic would not tolerate any attempt to erode its sovereignty through international pressure.

“Iran categorically rejects any pressure or mediation that seeks to undermine its sovereignty. We will defend our national interests, independence, and dignity,” he declared.

Politicized resolution in disguise

Najafi also expressed Iran’s outright rejection of what he described as a politicized resolution disguised as a technical safeguard concern, echoing Tehran’s longstanding understanding that the IAEA is being used as a tool for Western geopolitical agendas.

In a pointed warning to the E3, Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, Najafi made it clear that Iran’s response would be firm. “These measures will not pass without consequences. They must take full responsibility for the repercussions and Iran’s strong reaction,” he said.

Kamalvandi: Political pressure will escalate Iran’s nuclear program

Behrouz Kamalvandi, Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization, reinforced the government’s defiant tone, declaring that political pressure would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“It is a strategic mistake to think that political pressure will push Iran to abandon its legitimate positions,” Kamalvandi said, warning that the current approach would “backfire”.

He confirmed that Iran would soon launch a third uranium enrichment facility, in addition to boosting enrichment capacity at existing sites. “We will develop sixth-generation centrifuges and increase uranium enrichment significantly,” he stated.

More Western pressure, more Iranian countermeasures

Iran’s latest response underscores its growing rejection of Western pressure and marks a new phase in the country’s nuclear trajectory, one increasingly independent of multilateral negotiations and oversight mechanisms perceived by Tehran as compromised.

This development comes just days ahead of the sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, set to take place this Sunday in Muscat, Oman. The announcement was confirmed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who wrote in a post on X: “I am pleased to confirm the 6th round of Iran-US talks will be held in Muscat this Sunday, the 15th.”

Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to carve a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Secret British plans to ‘defeat entire Russian Black Fleet’ revealed in leaks

By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · June 11, 2025

Leaked files reviewed by The Grayzone expose the covert war waged by British intelligence against Russia in the Black Sea, outlining Ukrainian “honey trap” plots along with blueprints for blowing up the Kerch Bridge.

Sensitive documents reviewed by The Grayzone indicate that the United Kingdom is the central architect behind Ukrainian military operations targeting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Among other explosive findings, the files reveal high-ranking British military and intelligence figures drew up detailed plans to “maximize attrition of [Moscow’s] Black Sea Fleet,” plotted to blow up the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to mainland Russia with fertilizer bombs, and even devised blueprints for a series of submersibles which would allow Ukrainian divers to plant mines on Russian ships and infrastructure.

Further machinations include an explicit “honey trap” plan which called for establishing a brothel secretly run by British intelligence in Crimea. There, Russian-speaking female Ukrainian agents would ply “drunken sailors” from the Russian navy for information.

The schemes were assembled by Project Alchemy, a secret British military planning cell whose existence was first exposed by The Grayzone.

Alchemy’s intelligence-aligned director, Dominic Morris, once embedded with British special forces in Afghanistan while serving as a “political officer” for the UK embassy. The first of the relevant files was sent on April 14, 2022 — the same day Ukraine achieved its most spectacular naval success of the war when it sank Russia’s flagship in the region, the Moskva.

That feat was cheered by Western media, with the New York Times heralding the ship’s destruction as a “signal triumph – a display of Ukrainian skill and Russian ineptitude.” As the previously-unpublished files show, admirers of the operation also included Project Alchemy’s Dominic Morris, who saw an opportunity to “defeat the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet” and immediately began crafting plans to sink the rest of Moscow’s warships.

The destruction of the Moskva purportedly both surprised and panicked the Biden administration, as they apparently didn’t believe Ukraine possessed missiles capable of striking such a target and, according to one mainstream report, “hadn’t intended to enable the Ukrainians to attack such a potent symbol of Russian power.” But the attack apparently convinced the White House and Pentagon to double down on their military support for Kiev – and as the documents show, it had the same effect across the pond.

In response to an April 23, 2022 brief authored by a fellow cell member on the importance of Western powers supporting Ukrainian “land” operations, Morris declared “the sinking of Moskva” meant Kiev should focus predominantly on “maritime” operations instead. After complaining that “apart from a little bit of moving tanks and planes around a peaceful Europe,” NATO was “not doing any fighting,” Morris wrote that he saw a chance for the UK to eliminate every Russian vessel in the region without even going to war.

“You could defeat the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet” with “subthreshold options,” he wrote, referring to gray zone tactics which the British military has officially defined as “all activity up to, but not crossing, the legal definition of armed conflict.” Morris specifically proposed “commando raids” as “a fab subthreshold activity that will scare the shit out of” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The attack on the Moskva appeared to serve as a catalyst for Alchemy’s “Black Sea Operations,” which were already being assembled within a few hours of the news breaking. In a document dated the same day as the ship sank, Morris boasted that the “current situation in Ukraine gives the West an ideal opportunity to degrade Russian military capability by destroying as much Russian equipment as possible,” and went on to outline a series of multi-pronged and phased operations targeting Russia across the Black Sea. “Inflicting a high casualty rate must continue,” because “lots of dead soldiers returning to the mainland will have a big impact on public opinion” in Russia, Alchemy’s Morris declared.

Project Alchemy also proposed a joint UK-Ukrainian intelligence operation in which “female agents” were surreptitiously inserted into Russian navy “admin posts.” In phase one of the operation, Morris proposed “setting up a bar and brothel” in Crimea to “gain intelligence from drunken sailors,” and serve as a “honey trap” for military and intelligence officers. “The agents must be Russian speakers and attractive, able to manipulate, playing to the weakness of the average Russian male,” he stressed.

In the second phase, Morris proposed an “unconventional option” for blowing up Kerch Bridge, in which “a hijacked Russian flagged bulk carrier loaded with fertiliser rigged with explosives” would be parked under the Bridge and detonated. Morris “assessed this will be a significant kinetic event that will be able to blast four – six pillars on the bridge, rendering it unusable for a long period of time.” Given Kerch Bridge “was Putin’s crowning glory after taking Crimea,” he suggested its total destruction had the potential to foment a palace coup in the Kremlin.

The Kerch Bridge’s collapse, and the infiltration of spies into Crimea, would lay foundations for the third phase: the “main offensive” of seizing the peninsula. Alchemy’s previously established “honey traps” could establish covert “safe houses and weapon stores” in advance of the mission, Morris suggested. Next, “a direct attack against Sevastopol using a tanker fully laden with fuel into Strilets Bay.” This would be “in essence a fire ship creating further panic” and “sending a strong signal to the Russian Navy [that] nowhere is safe in the region.”

Finally, Morris advocated that Ukraine pursue a strategy of “containment” by seeking to “disrupt” and “capture/reflag the [Black Sea Fleet.]” The idea, the Alchemy chief explained, was “to target the Black Sea Fleet with the aim of destroying as many ships as possible,” as Moscow’s warships were “trapped with little places to hide” there. He urged the “use of civilian vessels retrofitted” with British-supplied weaponry, and proposed “ambushes using hijacked Russian ships to lure in a warship to be attacked by portable anti-ship missiles.”

While no such operation ever materialized, Sevastopol has been a consistent target of Kiev’s drone and missile blitzes throughout the conflict. In fact, the “Black Sea Operations” memo identified the Nakhimov Naval Academy in the Crimean capital as an ideal target for such attacks. The institution has been repeatedly rocked by Ukrainian strikes during this period. An incendiary strike on Kerch Bridge did come to pass in October 2022 – and as The Grayzone revealed at the time, it was almost certainly the outcome of blueprints prepared by Project Alchemy.

In a secret memo one month later, Alchemy leader Dominic Morris stated approvingly that the “attack on Kerch” had “hurt” the Russians. Noting that a relatively high-ranking Russian politician was personally dispatched to oversee the Bridge’s reconstruction, Morris claimed this underlined the attack’s political significance to the Kremlin, and added: “It is not an easy repair, they need to replace road [sic] in each direction (ie the one that wasn’t hit) and bad weather is slowing them.”

On April 16, just two days after the Moskva went under, Alchemy’s plans had already morphed into a “CONOPS” – military jargon which the US Department of Defense defines as a “statement that clearly and concisely expresses what the joint force commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources.” The document, which is entitled “Building Ukraine [sic] Maritime Raiding Capability” and closely matches a secret British presentation previously exposed by The Grayzone, describes the Moskva’s sinking as “a significant blow to Russian naval capability” that left the rest of the Black Sea Fleet “vulnerable to missile attack.”

According to Alchemy, the sinking of more ships would “force the Russian navy farther away from the Ukraine coast or into port, opening the potential for the Ukrainian Navy to launch littoral, inshore, coastal and riverine raiding operations.” The cell noted “the exploitable sea area” was “relatively small” – “just 160 nautical miles from Odessa to Sevastopol as an example,” which was “well within the range of small assault crafts.”

Ukrainian marines and naval forces were to be equipped and trained by the British to allow for “ambushing… Russian engineer and Spetsnaz reconnaissance teams” and “harassing Russian forces in hit and run operations from the waterways.” These teams would also be charged with “[taking] out coastal radar stations,” and thus “blinding Russian forces.” As these stations were “likely to be well defended,” such attacks would “have to be well planned and hit at lightning speed to ensure success and escape,” Alchemy wrote, insisting that “agent[s] already inserted into Crimea” from mainland Russia would “provide intelligence for the naval commandos.”

The battle plans specifically called for Ukrainian commandos to “Hunt and destroy any Russian patrol craft operating in Dniprovska Gulf and conduct beach reconnaissance from Kilburn [sic] Spit to Yahorlyk Bay to identify good landing locations for a larger assault force for a future counter attack.”

The Kinburn spit, a narrow sandbar which comprises the far western end of the Crimean peninsula, has been a frequent target of Ukrainian raids since Russia’s seizure of the territory.

In the document, Alchemy suggested “specialist training for chosen men” who spoke Russian to carry out “covert undercover missions.” They would also receive training in the use of small arms, sabotage “to disrupt civil installations such as electrical substations, railways, cyber, hacking skills, locksmith training, advanced unarmed combat,” and how “to identify high ranking military officers for assignation while off duty in Crimea.”

Ukraine trained in planting limpet mines

A leaked Project Alchemy proposal from September 2022 outlined an elaborate scheme based on input from three unnamed British companies to target Russia’s Black Sea Fleet while harbored in Sevastopol, strike “civilian vessels” used by Russia to move troops and equipment in the Dnipro River, and carry out night-time raids on “other maritime environment [sic] being used” by Russian forces. The planned military campaign was known as “The Tauris Project.”

The document noted that Russia’s Navy “need to refuel and reprovision in-between deployments,” and Sevastopol “is the primary port” for this purpose. According to Alchemy, Sevastopol was the one place Moscow’s Kilo Class submarines were “vulnerable to attack,” because in other areas the crafts were “able to operate with impunity as Ukraine does not possess the subsurface capability to counter the threat.”

In Sevastopol, however, the Black Sea Fleet could “easily be destroyed by combat swimmers delivered covertly” via crewed submersibles that allow divers to deploy underwater covertly, which are known in military parlance as Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs). As Alchemy explained, “Once the combat swimmers are in the port they can attach limpet mines to [Russian] ships and submarines before slipping silently back to Chornomorsk.”

Alchemy and its unnamed confederates thus designed an SDV “specifically for operating in the coastal area of Ukraine,” with “a superior range to reach Sevastopol from Chornomorsk.” The file suggested these vehicles could also be deployed along riverbanks to “destroy shipping and hit targets out of range of conventional weapon systems” and “provide intelligence on enemy movements.” Dubbed the Tauris 1, it purportedly boasted “state of the art” technology, and was “capable of operating surfaced or submerged.”

The Tauris 1 would reportedly transport “one pilot and navigator plus four combat swimmers to remote locations on covert missions to include, surveillance, infiltration, mine clearance & mine laying,” with a system “designed to be fast when operating on the surface” – at up to 30 knots – and “ultra-quiet when submerged… with a very low radar signature when operating sub-surface at snorkeling depth.” Meanwhile, it could be parked on sea and riverbeds, or automatically surfaced via “a coded ping sequence.”

“We believe that the SDVs will give the Ukrainian Navy a huge advantage in disrupting, destroying key [Russian] assets and wider forces deployed in the south,” the document bragged. It foresaw 24 – 48 Ukrainian Marines and naval personnel being trained over “an eight-week course in a secret location in the UK,” overseen by a technical team and instructors comprising “former SDV pilots and navigators who served in the UK Special Forces community.” This would include “tactical training and limpet mine training.”

Britain exploits Ukraine for Black Sea control

The document predicted it would take a year to construct the Tauris 1 SDVs, at an eye-popping price of £6 – 8 million per vehicle. While there is no evidence that Kiev took Alchemy and its partners up on the proposition, there have been numerous examples of kamikaze Ukrainian commando raids on Russian-held territory, often using jet skis. In addition to the Kinburn Spit, the Tendra Spit, which sits 20 kilometers to its south, has also been a repeat target.

A typically ill-fated raid which took place on February 28, 2024 saw five Ukrainian assault boats immediately come under intensive Russian fire as they approached the Tendra Spit, leaving dozens dead and just one watercraft able to escape the scene.

Even doggedly anti-Russian news outlets in Britain were forced to acknowledge the debacle, with The Telegraph lambasting the operation as a “failure” and noting that it was “not clear what the Ukrainian forces were attempting to achieve.” The suicidal raids have drawn comparisons to Kiev’s calamitous attempt to capture Krynky, which as The Grayzone revealed, was planned and directed by Project Alchemy.

Elsewhere, British-backed attacks on Russia’s forces in the Black Sea have been more successful. In March 2024, following a series of well-publicized sinkings of Russian warships, the UK’s then-Defence Minister Grant Shapps boasted that drones and missiles supplied by London had helped Kiev “lay waste to nearly 30 per cent” of the Russian Navy stationed there. On top of weaponry, it’s likely the Ukrainian strikes relied heavily on targeting intelligence provided by Britain’s RC-135 spy planes, which ramped up surveillance of Russia assets in the Black Sea following the proxy war’s outbreak.

Today, London remains determined to neutralize Russia’s presence in the Black Sea. In January 2025, a defense contractor and British government-funded think tank known as the Council on Geostrategy floated the idea of deploying a British naval task force to the region, to “reshape” its “geopolitics.” The Ministry of Defence then invited “industry partners from NATO, Ukraine, and Five-Eyes countries” to submit designs and plans for “the development of a versatile, fast, and low-observable maritime system designed for operations in Ukraine and beyond.”

Before the month was over, a UK minister confirmed in parliament that in an attempt “to support Ukraine,” the Ministry of Defence had developed two “new uncrewed maritime [systems]” that were “undergoing final testing,” which it dubbed ‘Snapper’ and ‘Wasp.’ The uniquely British obsession with exploiting the proxy war to obliterate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet may seem peculiar, given its relative lack of impact on the battlefield.

However, the true motivation was clearly spelled out in a March 2022 Council on Geostrategy report, which declared that the hostilities in Ukraine meant London’s “stake in the Black Sea region has been elevated.” The paper detailed how control of the region was essential for Britain’s intended “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific, which was laid out in the official July 2021 “integrated review” of UK security and defense strategy. As the Council on Geostrategy explained, “any power controlling the Black Sea would be able to exert significant pressure on the key maritime communication lines from Europe to the Indo-Pacific.”

This February, a spate of explosions was reported on tankers in the Mediterranean which had recently stopped at Russian ports. Italian investigators suspect Kiev was responsible for carrying out at least one of these incidents using limpet mines — the same weapon they were trained to use by British intelligence.

Three years after the Moskva’s sinking, Russia still maintains several naval assets in the Black Sea. However, its fleet is unable to leave the confines of Moscow-controlled waters in the east. Just how much responsibility Britain bears for this feat remains unclear, but Project Alchemy’s files demonstrate a substantial role for the UK since the onset of the war.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Pentagon Puts AUKUS on Ice, Leaving Allies Rattled

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 12.06.2025

The US Defense department is reviewing the 2021 AUKUS submarine deal with the UK and Australia, the Financial Times reported earlier. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, a senior defense official known for his past skepticism of the pact.

The Pentagon is taking a hard look at its role in the AUKUS alliance to make sure it fits squarely within the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, according to a Department of Defense spokesperson.

“We’re reassessing AUKUS to ensure this carryover from the last administration aligns with the president’s priorities,” the spokesperson said.

Australia has rushed to say it’s still on board with US defense cooperation, but according to The Australian, the Pentagon’s review is a “major blow” to Canberra.

The Financial Times earlier reported that Washington is weighing a full exit from the AUKUS pact with Australia and the UK.

Announced on September 15, 2021, the AUKUS trilateral partnership between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia promised to bolster Australia’s fleet with nuclear-powered submarines and increase defense cooperation among countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The deal led to a diplomatic rift between Australia and France after Canberra reneged on a $66 billion contract with Paris to develop 12 advanced conventionally powered attack submarines.

Russia has criticized the trilateral security pact, which focuses on military cooperation and countering China in the Indo-Pacific, as undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by transferring nuclear submarine technology to Australia, a non-nuclear-weapon state.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

A history of the Zionist lobby in England and the USA

By Bruna Frascolla | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 10, 2025

The voluminous book Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, was published in late 2024. He wrote a history of the lobby and traced its beginnings to 19th-century England; more specifically, to Anthony Ashley-Cooper (1801 – 1885), 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. The other side of the Atlantic alluded to in the title is, of course, the USA, and the history continues to the present.

Over the centuries, both the British crown and the US government have had tendencies both in favor of and against the lobby. The latter sought to place an Arab monarch as a preferred ally and to keep the Middle East at peace, without the immense disturbances caused by Zionists. During the Cold War, these internal tensions were quite dramatic, since making the “Free World” an unconditional supporter of Israel meant to push the Arabs, with all their oil, to the side of the Soviets.

Since the book is comprehensive, I have chosen a few points to highlight that are specifically from the history of the lobby.

The origins

Since the idea that the Jews should return to the Holy Land is easily found among Puritans (Pappé shows that even President John Adams believed in this), the choice of the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury is due to the fact that he had worked, within the British Empire, for the creation of “a British and Jewish state in the middle of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine” (p. 4). In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was strong and steady. In a way, then, the Zionist lobby began as a British lobby against the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

In 1838, under the pressure of Shaftesbury and already with such a purpose, the first British consulate was opened in Ottoman Palestine. For Shafstesbury, “the days of the Ottoman Empire were numbered, and the scramble for its spoils had already begun” (p. 6). Both the earl and the first consul had previously been involved in religious projects, which aimed to interpret the Bible and convert the Jews.

In addition to the religious and geopolitical issues, there was the issue of migration. In the 19th century, Western Europe did not know what to do with the multitude of Eastern Jews fleeing pogroms in the Russian Empire. Therefore, in addition to the eschatological and geopolitical purposes, the creation of a Jewish state would serve as a dumping ground to solve Europe’s migration problem. Furthermore, the 19th century was witnessing the rise of scientific racism, so this concern was motivated by anti-Semitism.

The United States also had an early lobby in the 19th century promoted by Puritans. The most notable result is that these Puritans formed Cyrus Scofield, the author of the Scofield Bible. The faithful who study his edition of the Bible will find many explanatory notes in the Old Testament, and will learn that the Bible is a kind of real estate deed, in which the area of ​​the ancient Kingdom of Israel is owned by the Jews per omnia saecula saeculorum, and that it is the duty of Christians to support the chosen people when they blow up the houses of the Gentiles who live there.

The poor Jews and the leftist phase

Normally, the history of Zionism begins with Herzl and the publication of Der Judenstaat in 1896. By then, much water had already flowed under the bridge among the Puritans. And when Herzl entered the scene, he failed to win over the Anglo-Jewish elites. They considered that the creation of a Jewish state would call into question their loyalty to England, and they saw this as a bad deal.

On the other hand, the poor Jews crowded into the outskirts of London saw Zionism as a chance to change their lives. At that time, socialism and communism were spreading among the urban poor in Europe. Zionism then abandoned the colonialist and capitalist vocabulary of Herzl (who wrote Der Judenstaat to convince a Jewish banker to invest in the new movement) and began to present itself as the socialism of the Jews. Thus, the Poale Zion movement, a labor movement, became a craze among poor Jews in England, and would grow greatly within the Labour Party in the 20th century. Since the English Left is of Puritan formation, combining Jewish socialism with Puritan Christian laborism was like combining fire with gasoline. Only in the second half of the 20th century did the greater visibility of Israel’s crimes bring Labour closer to the Palestinian cause. One of the most prominent figures in this movement was George Galloway, a Scotsman of Irish descent and, for that reason, a Catholic.

Furthermore, in both Europe and the Americas, the idea that Bolshevism was a Jewish conspiracy was widespread, so that every Jew was suspected of communism. It was a burden for a Jew to call himself a communist, so Zionism was the politically correct leftism.

The Israeli Lobby’s Takeover of the United States

One of the questions that most intrigues observers of the issue is: Is Israel an extension of American power in the Middle East, or is it a vampire state that uses American resources to maintain its own project? Pappé’s book points to the second answer, although it makes clear that the neocons (who consider Israel an outpost of their civilization) have their own agenda.

The lobby’s takeover of the United States should make political theorists reflect on the flaws of democracy. In the 1950s, there were the “three I”s of identity politics: Italians, Irish and Israel. The three communities originating from minority religions (Catholicism and Judaism) elected their representatives based on their Italian, Irish or Jewish identity. An exemplary case was that of parliamentarian Fiorello La Guardia, the son of an Italian father and a Hungarian Jew (which makes him Jewish according to halacha), fluent in Italian and Yiddish. Thus, by claiming two identities, he achieved electoral success by garnering the votes of the Italian and Jewish communities. American Jews were great enthusiasts of Israel; and, even if they had no intention of moving there, they demanded that their parliamentarians take measures favorable to the foreign state. Furthermore, the puritanical formation of the United States meant that there was widespread sympathy for the idea of ​​sending the Jews “back” to the Holy Land.

Since the majority of Jews were left-wing, it was common sense that the Democrats had to be pro-Israel, since they depended on the Jewish vote. (Although Kennedy frustrated these expectations.) The party most capable of confronting the lobby would, in principle, be the Republicans.

Nevertheless, opposition to the lobby had been concentrated, since the partition of Palestine, among State Department bureaucrats. They were the ones who wanted to make alliances with Arab monarchies, keep the region stable and prevent the Arab world from getting closer to the Soviet Union. However, stopping the pampering of Israel was difficult in American democracy for two reasons: the aforementioned puritanical affection for Israel and the lobby’s role in campaign financing.

The game began to change within the bureaucracy when Nixon hired the diabolical Henry Kissinger as an advisor. Under his influence, the Arabists in the State Department were replaced by pro-Israel people. Furthermore, also during the Nixon administration, Hans Morgenthau’s political philosophy, according to which states should not care about morality in international relations, became the institutional stance of the United States.

Henry Kissinger and Hans Morgenthau were two German Zionist Jews who went to the United States as refugees. Morgenthau was also an advisor to Ben Gurion during the ethnic cleansing of 1948. The realist Morgenthau made a school of thought and was succeeded by the neo-realist Kenneth Waltz. Regarding the latter, Pappé comments: “His work still constitutes the ideological infrastructure of most studies in international relations research centres in America. From these centres graduated the American diplomats who were selected to conduct the peace process in the Middle East, guided to overlook issues such as justice or morality in the process and to take as few risks as possible. This suited Israel very well and disadvantaged the Palestinians considerably.” (p. 325).

By combining the major pro-Israel actors in the United States, Pappé speaks of an unholy trinity: “Christian Zionism, neoconservatism and the American Jewish lobby” (p. 362). The neocons are a school of thought that is notoriously composed of many ex-Trotskyist Jews, but it is worth noting that this is not exclusive (neither Fukuyama nor Huntington are Jewish).

As for the lobby, AIPAC which takes up many, many pages in the book. This is the most famous lobbying organization in the US and its most notorious activity is financing campaigns for politicians at the beginning of their careers. AIPAC was founded in the 1950s from pre-existing organizations and intended to be bipartisan. It takes money from US donors, sends it to Israel, and Israel decides how to spend it. (I will not go into the details of AIPAC here, but I recommend the documentary The Lobby produced by Al-Jazeera, which is a source for Pappé in the book.) Of the unholy trinity, the only thing left to look at is the Christian Zionists.

Radicalization and televangelists

In the 1980s, after a long hegemony of the socialist and labor left, a right-wing, religious and nationalist coalition came to power in Israel. American Jews, who were mostly leftists, began to distance themselves from the Israeli government. Since AIPAC works in the interests of the Israeli government, and not of the American Jewish electorate, AIPAC ceased to be bipartisan and became right-wing. Thus, instead of focusing on the Jewish population to mobilize American public opinion in favor of Israel, the lobby preferred to focus increasingly on fundamentalist Zionist Christians. This strategy was launched by Menachem Begin and his Likud party in 1977, and the idea was conceived by the young Benjamin Netanyahu, who had just returned from the United States.

During the Reagan era, televangelists emerged, and at the same time foreign policy was thought of in Manichaean religious terms (the Christian West was fighting the great Satan in Moscow, etc.). In this context, televangelists took the lead in Zionist propaganda, saying that being against Israel was being against God. Between 1981 and 1989, writes Pappé, “Netanyahu integrated the Christian fundamentalists into Israeli Hasbara (propaganda)” (p. 311). Perhaps the greatest proof of this integration is the fact that, in occupied Lebanon (1982 – 2000), Israel authorized the opening of a Zionist Christian TV channel that broadcasted televangelists. They were probably targeting the Maronites…

Lobby doomed

In addition to telling the story of the lobby, Pappé points out a puzzle: why, decades after the international recognition of the state of Israel, does the Zionist lobby tirelessly repeat that the State of Israel is legitimate? Both in the preface and in the conclusion, he raises his conjectures. He assumes that propaganda is, in principle, a problem of conscience: Zionist Jews know that Israel is illegitimate, and that is why they lie non-stop. But there is a more serious problem: Israel does what it wants, and no longer cares about public opinion. What is the point of spending so much money to suppress student speech on American campuses, if the opinion of those students is irrelevant? For Pappé, the lobby has taken on a life of its own, and power is intoxicating. Why would a lobbyist give up the influence he has over politicians of left-wing and right-wing parties on both sides of the Atlantic?

Nevertheless, the lobby is doomed to failure because Israel has already decided that it does not care about Western opinion. Thus, in its death throes, the lobby will become increasingly ferocious, seeking to hide reality and maintain power.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Britain Launches Cross-Border Censorship Hunt Against 4chan

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 11, 2025

The UK government has taken another aggressive step in its campaign to regulate online speech, launching formal investigations into the message board 4chan and seven file-sharing sites under its far-reaching Online Safety Act.

But this is more than a domestic crackdown; it is a clear attempt to assert British speech laws far beyond its borders, targeting platforms that have no meaningful presence in the UK.

The law, which came into full force in April, gives sweeping powers to Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to demand that websites and apps proactively remove undefined categories of “illegal content.”

Failure to comply can trigger massive fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10 percent of global revenue, criminal penalties for company executives, and site-wide bans within the UK.

Now, Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game.

“Wherever in the world a service is based if it has ‘links to the UK’, it now has duties to protect UK users,” Ofcom insists.

That phrase, “links to the UK,” is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expansive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site.

According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its “statutory information requests,” making it one of nine services now under formal investigation.

What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the UK entirely.

Already, popular free speech platforms like GabBitChute, and Kiwi Farms have blocked UK access, citing the chilling effects of the Online Safety Act.

Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the UK, where only government-approved content and services remain accessible.

4chan, long a lightning rod for unfiltered speech and internet culture, has no shortage of detractors. But the platform’s commitment to anonymity and free expression has also made it one of the last places online where users can post without algorithmic throttling or corporate moderation.

It is routinely blamed for hosting “offensive” memes, and conspiracies, yet in nearly every case, the speech in question would be protected under US First Amendment standards.

Rather than respecting these legal differences, the UK is attempting to export its more restrictive model of speech regulation to the rest of the world. The aim is clear: if a platform cannot or will not bend to Ofcom’s demands, it will be blacklisted from the UK internet.

June 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment