Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Beat of the War Drums

By Craig Murray | November 20, 2025

In fascist lockstep, the entire British media, broadcast and print, corporate and state, is leading with a Ministry of Defence press release about a “Russian spy ship” inside “British waters”.

No British media appears to have been able to speak to anybody who knows the first thing about the Law of the Sea.

Here are the facts:

The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The Continental Shelf can extend still further, as a fact of geology, not an imposed maximum.

On the Continental Shelf the coastal state is entitled to the mineral resources. In the Exclusive Economic Zone the coastal state is entitled to the fisheries and mineral resources.

For purposes of navigation, both the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone are part of the High Seas. There is freedom of navigation on the High Seas. Foreign ships, including foreign military ships, may come and go as they please. Nor is there any ban on “spying” – exactly as there is no restriction on spying from satellites.

The Territorial Waters of a state extend out to just twelve miles. These are subject to the internal legislation of the coastal state. There is freedom for foreign vessels, including military vessels, to pass through them but only subject to the rule of “innocent passage” – which specifically rules out spying and reconnaissance. In the territorial sea, vessels have to be genuinely just passing through on their way somewhere, otherwise they may need coastal state permission for their activity.

The Exclusive Economic Zone is subject to the rules of the coastal state only in relation to the reserved economic activities to which the state is entitled. Scientific research is specifically free for all states within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Russian ship Yantar has been just outside the UK territorial waters. It is therefore under “freedom of navigation” and not under “innocent passage”. It is free to do scientific research.

I don’t doubt it is really gathering intelligence on military, energy and communications facilities. That is what states do. The UK does it to Russia all the time, on the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Not to mention 24/7 satellite surveillance.

It is perfectly legal for the Yantar to do this. Personally I wish the entire world would stop such activity, but to blame the Russians given the massive levels of surveillance and encirclement they suffer from NATO assets is simply ludicrous.

Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy that the UK has been flying intelligence missions over Gaza every single day and feeding targeting information to aid the Gaza genocide.

The UK’s allies blew up Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The UK is now accusing the Yantar precisely of scouting this same kind of attack – which we endorsed when the pipeline was Russian.

For example HMS Sutherland, accompanied by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring, and two other NATO warships penetrated 160 miles into Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and lingered 40 miles from Russia’s Severomorsk naval base. There was no pretence they were doing anything other than gathering intelligence and sounding out defences.

In armed forces media the UK boasted it was an assertion of freedom of navigation. Yet we harass the Russian vessel equally on the High Seas for exercising its freedom of navigation.

That was also perfectly legal. The idea that the same activity is worthy when we do it, but a pretext for war if the Russians do it, is so childish as to be beyond ridicule. But there is not one single mainstream journalist willing to call it out.

As this photo of HMS Somerset illegally threatening the Yantar on the High Seas shows, forcing it into dangerous moves, the aggression is not from the Russians. That British jets illegally buzzing the Yantar have been met with lasers designed to disrupt attacks. That is not the Russian aggression John Healy claims. The nonsense about dazzling pilots’ eyes is sheer invention.

Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away it is a physical impossibility to shine a laser into a pilot’s eyes in a modern warplane, from below in a ship. The pilot won’t be looking at the ship out of the window, but will be looking at his screens and the image from the cameras under the plane. These might be disrupted by the lasers – and a perfectly valid and sensible defensive measure that is too.

This is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Imagine it in the skies way above you and look at its body, particularly the front end – how would you get line of sight on the pilot? You couldn’t. Lasers only go in straight lines.

Most sinister of all is the universal state control of media that gets every single mainstream outlet booming out the propaganda narrative, all entirely without question.

This war talk is of course the normal refuge of extremely unpopular governments. But it is part of a wider tightening of the grip of the military-industrial complex on the state. Starmer is committed to increasing military expenditure by tens of billions of pounds a year, while imposing austerity on the rest of the economy. In Scotland, we are told that the closure of major industrial sites like Grangemouth and Mossmorran will be compensated by opening new weapons factories.

Beating ploughshares into swords.

The rise of domestic racism and authoritarianism is accompanied by the increase in militarism and the desire to portray Russia and China as enemy states with whom we are already in a state of proto-war. The state has a mainstream media which is showing itself willing to pump out even the most thin propaganda to this end with no interrogation whatsoever.

Western democracy has already died. Not everybody has yet noticed.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

The GRANITE ACT: Wyoming Bill Targets Foreign Censors With $10M Penalties

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 24, 2025

The first cannon shot in a new kind of free speech war came not from Washington or Silicon Valley, but from Cheyenne. Wyoming Representative Daniel Singh last week filed the Wyoming GRANITE Act.

The “Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act,” passed, would make Wyoming the first state to let American citizens sue foreign governments that try to police what they say online.

The bill traces back to a blog post by attorney Preston Byrne, the same lawyer representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms in their battles against censorship-driven British regulators.

Byrne’s idea was simple: if the UK’s Ofcom or Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes wanted to fine or threaten Americans over online speech, the US should hit back hard.

Exactly one month after that idea appeared on his blog, it’s now inked into Wyoming legislative paperwork.

Byrne said:

“This bill has a long way to go until it becomes a law, it’s got to make it through legislative services, then to Committee, and then get introduced on the floor for a vote, but the important thing is, the journey of this concept, the idea of a foreign censorship shield law which also creates a civil cause of action against foreign censors, into law has begun.”

That “journey” may be the kind of slow procedural trudge that usually kills most ideas in committee, but the intent here is anything but mild, and, with the growing threat of censorship demands from the UK, Brazil, Europe, and Australia, there is a lot of momentum here to fight back.

“For the first time, state legislators are moving to implement rules that will allow U.S. citizens to strike back, hard, against foreign countries that want to interfere with Americans’ civil rights online,” Byrne continued.

The Act would let American citizens and companies sue foreign governments or their agents for trying to censor them, and, crucially, it strips away the usual escape hatch of sovereign immunity.

In its legal filing responding to the 4chan and KiwiFarms lawsuit, Ofcom insisted it has “sovereign immunity” and told the court there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the case on that basis.

The regulator’s lawyers framed Ofcom as a protected arm of the British state, immune from civil claims even when its decisions target a platform based entirely inside the United States.

Ofcom treats the idea of “sovereign immunity” as something substantial but the First Amendment as something that does not exist at all.

The GRANITE Act is a defensive maneuver against a growing global trend. “Foreign governments and their agents increasingly seek to restrict, penalize or compel disclosure concerning speech occurring wholly within the United States,” the bill warns.

Such efforts, it argues, “conflict with the constitutions of the United States and of Wyoming and chill speech by Wyoming residents and entities.”

The act’s definition section is where its true reach becomes clear. It covers “any law, regulation, judgment, order, subpoena, administrative action or demand of a foreign state that would restrict, penalize or compel disclosure concerning expression or association” that would otherwise be protected under US law.

The text is well-researched and knows all the buzzwords of tyranny, naming the categories most likely to cause friction: “foreign online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, defamation, privacy, or ‘harmful content’ laws.” It’s a catalog of the modern speech-control toolkit, all of which Wyoming now places firmly outside its borders.

Wyoming’s approach also bars its own agencies from playing along. “No state agency, officer, political subdivision, or employee thereof shall provide assistance or cooperation in collecting, enforcing or giving effect to any measure” that qualifies as foreign censorship. The phrasing borrows from the constitutional doctrine of anti-commandeering, warning that local officials won’t be drafted into enforcing foreign censorship orders.

In Byrne’s view, that legal protection has let overseas bureaucrats act like international hall monitors, wagging fingers at Americans through threats of fines or content bans.

Byrne didn’t mince words about what he thinks this law could mean:

“If we get corresponding federal action, this law, and laws like it, could represent the single greatest victory for global free speech in thirty years.”

The teeth of the bill lie in its damages. The minimum penalty: ten million dollars. It matches the scale of fines already threatened by the UK and others, which have been dangling penalties of $25 million or 10 percent of global revenue for non-compliance.

The math, as he puts it, is simple. A country can censor an American, but that choice now comes with a very real price tag.

“Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that US law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so. We should take that immunity away from them.”

Byrne’s theory is that once the threat of US civil suits hangs over foreign regulators, the entire global “censorship-industrial apparatus” starts to wobble.

Byrne notes that the GRANITE Act would also relieve the White House from having to deal with diplomatic flare-ups over censorship complaints.

Trial lawyers would take over that job, freeing the president to “move on to other, more important matters.”

If the Act becomes law, the power to fight foreign censorship wouldn’t rest with federal agencies but with American citizens, state courts, and civil litigators. It would empower them to fight back against foreign censors.

In the global tug-of-war over speech, Wyoming could suddenly become a frontline jurisdiction.

November 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

A historic decline in sympathy for Israel in Britain, and an unprecedented rise in solidarity with Palestine in 2025

By Adnan Hmidan | MEMO | November 24, 2025

Public sentiment in Britain today is markedly different from what it was two years ago. A society that once observed developments in the Middle East from a comfortable distance is now expressing a clearer and more confident moral position on the genocide in Gaza. The scale of this shift can be considered one of the most significant transformations in British public attitudes towards Palestine in recent decades.

Figures published in the autumn of 2025 indicate that sympathy for Israel has fallen to approximately 12 percent, the lowest level recorded, while sympathy for Palestinians has risen to around 38 percent in some national polling. A majority of respondents also state that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be justified on either moral or legal grounds. However, these figures represent only the surface of a deeper transition taking place within British society.

The primary catalyst for this shift has not been political realignment, diplomatic pressure or changes within party leaderships, but rather the scale and visibility of the atrocities committed in Gaza. As the genocide expanded to include the targeting of hospitals, schools and refugee camps, alongside collective punishment and reports of widespread abuse in detention, traditional claims about self-defence lost credibility.

Unfiltered images circulated widely across British media and social platforms. Families killed in their homes, children pulled from the rubble and patients evacuated after power cuts became daily realities rather than distant headlines. For many, Palestine was no longer viewed as a remote political issue but as a profound human tragedy unfolding in real time. The collapse of official narratives in the face of visible evidence contributed further to this reassessment, reinforcing the understanding that what is taking place is not a symmetrical conflict but the systematic destruction of a besieged population.

Over the past two years, Britain has also witnessed an unprecedented wave of public mobilisation. London and other major cities saw some of the largest demonstrations in Western Europe, continuing week after week without subsiding. Solidarity evolved from street marches to university encampments, from civic spaces to trade unions and professional bodies, and eventually to parliamentary scrutiny concerning arms exports and the UK’s legal responsibilities.

Notably, this movement was not driven solely by Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. Large numbers of students, academics, health workers, legal professionals, artists and members of the clergy took part. British Jewish groups opposing the genocide played an important role in challenging attempts to delegitimise or isolate the solidarity movement. Two years on, public mobilisation remains active despite increasingly restrictive protest regulations, indicating that this is not a temporary emotional response but a deeper shift in public conscience.

This evolving landscape has also reshaped how many Britons, particularly younger generations, understand the question of resistance. Public debate is no longer confined to simplistic binaries. There is growing recognition that resistance emerges from dispossession, blockade and the absence of any viable path to justice, rather than from ideological motivations alone.

Policy-makers in Britain are aware of these developments, even if official positions have not shifted dramatically. Pressure is visible in calls to suspend arms exports to Israel, demands for independent investigations into potential complicity and a noticeable shift in political language, especially within the Labour Party. The driving force behind this pressure has not been a change of government but the continuing reality of the genocide itself, which has made unconditional support for Israeli policies increasingly difficult to justify publicly.

The genocide in Gaza has reshaped how many people understand their place in the world. In Britain, solidarity with Palestine has become a reflection of moral responsibility rather than a peripheral political stance. Although the path ahead remains complex, the transformation witnessed over the past two years demonstrates that sustained exposure to reality can alter public attitudes in ways that once seemed unlikely.

The decline in sympathy for Israel marks not the conclusion of this shift, but its beginning. Palestine is no longer perceived as a distant or marginal issue, but as a central concern within British public consciousness — one that is unlikely to fade in the foreseeable future.

November 24, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Dismisses US Dialogue Claims as “Not Credible”

Al-Manar | November 23, 2025

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei stated on Sunday that Washington’s professed willingness for dialogue lacks credibility, asserting that US claims are fundamentally inconsistent with its actions.

Speaking at a weekly press conference, Baqaei referenced recent remarks by the US president, stating that America has demonstrated in practice that it is not serious about negotiations.

The spokesman suggested that Washington either misunderstands the very concept of negotiation or approaches talks with a mindset that reduces them to dictation. He emphasized that such claims must be measured against the United States’ actual conduct.

Commenting on Tehran’s conditions for any potential talks with the US, Baqaei underscored that safeguarding Iran’s national interests remains the central and guiding principle.

“The other side has shown no genuine belief in negotiations,” he said, adding that as long as dialogue is treated as an imposition, the necessary conditions for genuine talks do not exist.

“What matters is that the US government has destroyed any basis for trust through its actions,” Baqaei stated. He cited the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and subsequent “unfaithful” actions during the Biden administration, despite earlier progress.

He further argued that the US decision to accompany the Zionist regime in its military aggression against Iran this past June provided further proof of Washington’s lack of intent to reach a reasonable and fair solution.

Addressing other diplomatic matters, the spokesman firmly dismissed speculation that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi’s upcoming trip to the Netherlands would involve negotiations with the three European countries (the E3). He clarified that the visit’s sole purpose is participation in a conference for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Baqaei conceded that consultations with other foreign ministers might occur on the sidelines in The Hague, but he explicitly labeled reports of negotiations with the European troika as untrue.

November 23, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SHOCK POLL: 36% of Americans Believe They Experienced a Covid Shot Side Effect

By Jefferey Jaxen | November 22, 2025

The latest Rasmussen poll speaks volumes. A major flashing warning light for public health officials and political leadership. Are they paying attention? And more importantly, will they act?

Rasmussen polls are pulse checks – real-time snapshots of public sentiment and mood on key topics.

The recent Rasmussen report reveals:

  • 26% say they had minor side effects from the Covid shot
  • 10% reported major side effects from the vaccine
  • 46% believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths

Under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS, once authoritarian Covid shot mandates have been backed off to ‘individual-based decision-making’ but is that enough. It’s clear the current public health apparatus wants out of all aspects of the Biden administration’s Covid train wreck.

Given the mounting data and science pointing to harms, many believe the government should be doing more – namely removing the Covid shot from the market.

At the same time, The Telegraph is reporting the following:

The story was created thanks to the legal action of the independent, non-profit, non-affiliated group UsForThemUK, along with diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, who engaged in a 2-year battle to get public transparency of the general Covid vaccine and mortality data… data that was freely shared with pharmaceutical companies but withheld from the public.

The group lost its legal fight but a key admission was revealed to the public as the Telegraph writes:

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.

Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.

The Telegraph then describes a behind-the-veil moment writing:

UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.

In America, the CDC has just updated its “Vaccine Safety’ page creating massive public buzz showing an evolution in both science and a willingness to be truthful towards the public.

Among the new admissions the CDC website now states:

Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.

Together, both the UKHSA and CDC’s new statements show there has been, and still is, a lockstep coordination to purposely censor information from the public when it comes to injectable pharmaceutical product lines.

Governments are desperate to avoid the Covid vaccine injury conversation eager to avoid full-blown public health revolt on unknown consequences (already happening in large sections of the population)

The American Covid vaccine space is still a dismal public relations nightmare. The PREP Act, keeping the pandemic’s unnecessary actions in effect, blocks any hope of proper compensation for the critical mass of Americans who have experienced injuries from the mandated, failed shot.

Meanwhile, the ‘science is not political’ crowd spawned an East and West Coast Alliance coalition of all blue Democrat-run states representing the high water mark of hypocrisy and groupthink. Banding together for the purpose of ignoring the facts and evidence to push the Covid shot on infants and healthy people sans pandemic emergency.

The bizarre and self-defeatist move refusing to acknowledge any new science since 2020 on the mounting dangers of the Covid shot – the alliances are not only a danger to public health but to the credibility of the very institutional trust they claim to be standing for – perfect inversion.

The harms of the Covid shot are still a real concern of the American public. Ignoring these concerns or attempting to soft-sell solutions bypassing real help for the injured will not make this flashing red light any dimmer.

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Emirati, Israeli disinformation campaign frames Sudan conflict as Christian persecution: Report

Press TV – November 21, 2025

Far-right Emirati and Israeli social media influencers have engaged in a coordinated digital campaign to falsely claim that Christians were being killed by “Islamists” in Sudan, a new report has revealed.

Sudanese investigative platform Beam Reports said that after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group seized control of el-Fasher in Darfur nearly a month ago, misleading content about the nature of events began to surface online in a “synchronised manner.”

Beam found that several accounts took to social media to re-use images of RSF abuses against civilians in el-Fasher and frame them as “Islamist violence against Christians.”

The outlet accused Amjad Taha, an Emirati analyst, of being the architect of the campaign. He reportedly posted several claims about alleged Islamists in Sudan, which were then amplified by other accounts.

For several months, the Emirati figure has led the charge on social media to link Sudan’s armed forces with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic resistance movement Hamas in Gaza.

Amjad Taha claimed that Sudan’s army had “killed 2 million Christians, displaced 8 million, and raped 15,000 women, while leftists stay busy attacking the UAE… a nation where church bells ring freely.”

However, none of the numbers cited were supported by credible sources or verified reports, according to the investigation.

The Emirati influencer also said that a Sudanese army officer had “eaten a man’s heart after killing him and his children.” Again, no evidence was provided, but such claims were amplified by Emirati, Israeli, and far-right accounts.

According to the report published by Beam, the objectives of the coordinated campaign included shifting blame of atrocities away from the RSF, recasting Sudan’s war as a religious conflict to “evoke foreign sympathy,” and flooding the online space with fabricated content to confuse media coverage.

One such example was American influencer Nima Yamini, who shared images from el-Fasher and claimed they showed “Christians slaughtered in Sudan – and no one talks about it,” adding that massacres against Christians were so severe that you can “see blood from space.”

In reality, blood splatters seen from space were from areas of el-Fasher where the RSF were reported to have shot residents.

In a different post, far-right Polish politician Dominik Tarczynski shared a purported image of a mother and child in el-Fasher with the false caption: “Sudan: genocide of Christians by the Islamists.”

In 2023, a conflict broke out between the Sudanese army and the RSF, far from religious lines, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, displaced over 12 million people, and led the International Rescue Committee to characterize it as “the largest humanitarian crisis ever documented.”

Sudanese authorities have repeatedly said the RSF enjoys unconditional support from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with Khartoum taking legal action against the country at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in April.

A report by British daily newspaper The Guardian late last month revealed that British-made weapons and military equipment are being supplied by the UAE to militants from the RSF.

Furthermore, Khartoum-based writer and strategic affairs analyst Makkawi Elmalik also said in October that what is happening in Sudan “is not a regular military battle, but a systematic extermination committed by the RSF, supported by the UAE and Israel.”

He further stated that both the UAE and the Israeli regime have participated in planning the militia’s attacks on civilians in the Sudanese city and provided them with weapons and intelligence.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia, China upbraid anti-Iran IAEA resolution, urge West to drop threats

Press TV – November 21, 2025

Russia and China have, in the strongest terms, rebuked a recent anti-Iran resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling for the settlement of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation.

Drafted by France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States and approved 19–3 with 12 abstentions on Thursday, the resolution sought to pressure Tehran by demanding it “without delay” account for its enriched uranium stocks and facilities damaged in the June attacks by the United States and Israel.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova announced at a press conference in Moscow that Russia continues to firmly emphasize finding political and diplomatic solutions to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

Asked about a recent telephone conversation between the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers, during which the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and related talks were discussed, Zakharova was cited by TASS as saying that Moscow is consistently committed to actively seeking political and diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue.

The spokeswoman added that Moscow has repeatedly warned about the dangers of “military actions” that threaten the stability and security of West Asia, underlining that any military attack on nuclear facilities, especially those under the monitoring of the IAEA, is “unacceptable.”

Zakharova also said the US aggression against Iran’s nuclear sites undermined the principles the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — a treaty to which Iran has always been fully committed and which the IAEA has confirmed.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman went on to say that despite the efforts on the part of some foreign actors to create chaos and trouble in Iranian society, Tehran still prefers the path of dialogue over war and believes that national interests can be secured based on equal dialogue and by taking into account mutual concerns.

She stressed that in order to resume the talks, Iran needs “serious guarantees” that its nuclear facilities will not be targeted by missile or air attacks again.

Zakharova further underlined that the West must put aside threats of sanctions and military threats and return to diplomacy with Iran.

IAEA urged to create ‘favorable conditions for cooperation’

Li Song, China’s permanent representative to the IAEA, told the Board of Governors on Thursday that pushing through a counterproductive resolution against Iran will “only make things worse,” stressing that the US, Israel, and key European states are fueling the ongoing crisis surrounding Tehran’s nuclear file.

“Countries that have recklessly resorted to the use of force and obsessively pursued confrontation and pressure are responsible for the current situation of the Iranian nuclear issue,” Li said.

The Chinese envoy stressed that Israel and the United States attacked Iranian nuclear facilities safeguarded by the IAEA in June, which led to a “fundamental change in the situation of the Iranian nuclear issue.”

“Such an act should be strongly condemned by the international community and the IAEA,” he said.

On the Cairo agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA in September, Li emphasized that the pact was “a positive development” and “an important opportunity” to fully revive safeguards cooperation.

He said the activation of the snapback mechanism by the UK, France, and Germany had “seriously undermined the good momentum of cooperation” between Tehran and the Agency.

Li added that the Iranian nuclear issue “can only be properly resolved” by respecting Iran’s legitimate NPT rights and ensuring the peaceful nature of its program through political, diplomatic, and safeguards mechanisms.

The envoy called on the BoG to “create favorable conditions for cooperation and dialogue” and to avoid “provoking confrontation.”

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran moves to terminate Cairo agreement with IAEA

The Cradle | November 20, 2025

Iran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 20 November that it is terminating the cooperation agreement signed in Cairo in retaliation for the UN nuclear watchdog adopting a new resolution demanding expanded access and information on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran’s envoy to the agency, Reza Najafi, said the resolution “will not add anything to the current situation” and described it as “counterproductive” shortly after the Board of Governors approved the text.

He warned that it would have “a negative impact on the cooperation that has already started between Iran and the agency.”

According to diplomats who attended the closed session, the 35-member board passed the resolution with 19 votes in favor, three against, and 12 abstentions.

The text requires Iran to report “without delay” on the status of its enriched uranium stock and on its nuclear sites that were bombed by Israel and the US during the 12-day war on Iran in June.

It also urges Iran to “comply fully and without delay” with its obligations under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and to provide all information and access requested by the agency.

Western members of the board stated that “Iran must resolve its safeguards issues without delay” and called for “practical cooperation through access, answers, restoration of monitoring.”

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and had earlier cautioned that the resolution would “adversely affect” ongoing cooperation. Najafi noted that Iran had already granted access to “all undamaged facilities,” while inspectors have not been to sites such as Fordow and Natanz since they were hit in the June war.

The agency says verification of Iran’s uranium stock is “long overdue,” and that it cannot inspect the bombed facilities until Tehran submits updated reports.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the IAEA resolution was “unlawful and politically motivated,” initiated by the US and the European troika, and pushed through despite the 15 members voting against or abstaining.

He said the move ignored Iran’s goodwill, undermined the agency’s credibility and independence, and would disrupt cooperation.

The Foreign Minister had previously said that the Cairo agreement with the IAEA was defunct after Europe triggered snapback sanctions, but added that a negotiated solution remains possible if the opposing side acts in good faith.

Araghchi confirmed that he informed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in a formal letter that the agreement is now considered terminated.

When Israeli attacks began in June, the IAEA estimated Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent.

Iran and several allied states argued that issuing another resolution would jeopardize efforts to advance dialogue.

Tehran has declared that the September inspection agreement with the IAEA is void, and Najafi said the new resolution “will have its own consequences,” adding that Iran would announce them later.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BBC Editors Blocked Story on Latest Fluoride Science Over ‘Scaremongering’ Concerns, Former Reporter Says

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 19, 2025

A former BBC health correspondent said editors repeatedly prevented him from reporting on emerging scientific debates over the safety of water fluoridation, dismissing the story as “scaremongering.”

Michele Paduano spent three decades reporting for the BBC from the West Midlands, the first region in the U.K. to fluoridate its water supply, in 1964.

At a Fluoride Action Network (FAN) press conference on Tuesday, Paduano said he became interested in water fluoridation after reviewing the landmark 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The court found that the U.S. fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The West Midlands fluoridates its water at 1 mg/L, about 30% higher than the recommended U.S. level.

Paduano said professor Vyvyan Howard, a pathologist specializing in toxicology and a long-time collaborator, alerted him to several major cohort studies in top academic journals linking water fluoridation to lower IQ in children.

Paduano said mainstream media rebuttals were “so strong and absolute” that he knew publishing a story on the findings would be difficult.

He said he pursued the story only after reading the September 2024 court decision, which cited new evidence pointing to potential neurodevelopmental risks at lower fluoride concentrations.

“At that point, it felt like my public duty to tell people in the West Midlands that there was potentially a problem,” he said.

BBC editors rejected story as ‘scaremongering’

Paduano said he pitched the fluoride story through the BBC’s planning process and arranged an interview with West Midlands anti-fluoridation campaigner Joy Warren. Senior online and television editors abruptly cancelled the interview.

“They told me the story was scaremongering,” he said. Internal BBC scientists and public-health staff insisted there was no credible new evidence. Paduano said he challenged the decision and urged editors to read the U.S. court judgment, but they instead accused him of bias.

“As a BBC journalist, impartiality is fundamental. But impartiality also means reporting new evidence when it emerges,” he said.

Paduano continued investigating the issue and spoke with professor John Fawell, a leading U.K. pro-fluoridation expert and adviser to the World Health Organization (WHO).

As a result of their conversation, Paduano said Fawell acknowledged that recent research should prompt the U.K. to consider lowering fluoridation levels to match U.S. and Canadian guidance. Fawell, who co-authored a book on fluoridation’s oral health benefits, urged U.K. officials to reexamine the country’s dosage and consider aligning it with the U.S.

“If somebody who is a leading pro-fluoride proponent adjusts their position, that is a story,” Paduano said. But he said BBC editors still refused to let him cover it.

Paduano said he then emailed CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs Deborah Turness and BBC Director-General Tim Davie, but the response was “radio silence.” He then took his concerns to Nicholas Serota, a BBC board member responsible for editorial standards.

In the meantime, Paduano said he learned of planned BBC coverage in the North East about proposed fluoridation expansion, and he told Serota that failing to mention the U.S. court decision would constitute “significant censorship.”

Paduano said the article on the North East fluoridation expansion that eventually appeared briefly mentioned the U.S. judgment. He continued arguing that the West Midlands — which has fluoridated its water for decades — should also have reported on the new developments.

The editorial board refused to cover the story. “Concern was that we would be scaremongering, we would frighten people and that the science wasn’t there,” Paduano said.

Paduano said frustrations over fluoride reporting, along with broader concerns about the broadcaster’s impartiality and its close relationship with government, ultimately pushed him to leave the BBC.

Soon after, the BBC published an article about a recommendation by Worcestershire public health officials to expand fluoridation countywide. In what Paduano described as “the ultimate bias,” the article didn’t refer to the U.S. judgment or related research.

After leaving the BBC, Paduano contacted The Independent, which published his story on Fawell’s changing position on water fluoridation.

Paduano said he again approached the BBC, arguing that national coverage proved the issue’s newsworthiness, but editors held their ground and directed him to the complaints process — which he says has resulted in little progress.

‘We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly,’ BBC says

The BBC has not responded publicly to Paduano’s allegations, and it did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

The organization did reply to complaint letters from Howard and FAN’s science adviser Paul Connett, Ph.D., author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.” The letters urged the BBC to show “objectivity and professionalism on the latest research into the risks of water fluoridation” and to investigate Paduano’s claims.

In its initial response, the BBC complaints team said it had “provided a fair and appropriate view” of the water fluoridation issue.

In a follow-up response to Connett and Howard, the BBC defended its decision not to mention recent science linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental issues in children.

The BBC said its reporting reflects “the majority view — from the World Health Organisation, US Centre for Disease Control, the American Dental Society [sic] and others,” and argued that it maintains a “higher bar for publishing stories around health risk.”

The BBC cited its editorial guidelines:

“The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful.”

Kevin Silverton, who signed the letter, said the complaints team could not continue corresponding and that further concerns should be taken to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit.

BBC reporting on fluoride ‘can’t be trusted’

Connett told The Defender he was “shocked” when the BBC justified its position by citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA) and the WHO as representing the majority expert view. He said:

“As you well know, the CDC oral health division’s mission was to promote fluoridation, and the ADA has avidly promoted it for years — so much so that any study that found any harm was immediately dismissed as being bad science, and the WHO has not looked at fluoride’s neurotoxicity for many years, if ever. It is incredible to me that this very large government-funded body should rely on such one-sided, essentially partisan.”

Connett said the public and local officials rely on the BBC for accurate information, but on fluoride, “it can’t be trusted.” He said:

“When a major media entity gets involved, you would hope that they would do their homework and review the science when it is available for them. In this case the issue should have been easy because it did not entail slogging through all the studies themselves. They had a major review by a government entity, the National Toxicology Program, and they also had the judgment of a judge in a seven-year lawsuit.

“In short, the BBC is abusing the public’s trust on this important health issue, and that is shocking. Scientists like myself have an obligation to speak out. In our case, we were lucky to have a journalist to give us an inside view of the censorship that went on. We are often not that lucky.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Elbit Systems reports record profits on the back of Gaza genocide

The Cradle | November 18, 2025

Israel’s leading defense technology company, Elbit Systems, reported a sharp rise in quarterly profit on 18 November after months of fueling the genocide in Gaza by supplying weapons, munitions, and surveillance systems, while simultaneously securing a wave of new European contracts.

The company posted $3.35 per diluted share excluding one-time items, up from $2.21 a year earlier, and reported $1.92 billion in revenue compared to $1.72 billion last year.

Its order backlog reached $25.2 billion, with the company saying 69 percent comes from outside Israel.

Elbit CEO Bezhalel Machlis said the performance reflected “the significant contracts the company has secured across Europe and from customers worldwide,” driven by expanding defense budgets.

Israel accounted for over 33 percent of revenue, with Elbit supplying munitions, drones, guided rockets, and reconnaissance systems during the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

Sales to Europe, the world’s second-largest buyer of Israeli weapons, rose from $430 million to $536 million, comprising 28 percent of total revenue.

The company said 69 percent of its backlog comes from outside Israel and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.75 per share.

Separately, Elbit announced the largest contract in its history, a $2.3-billion deal with an undisclosed international buyer for weapons systems to be delivered over eight years.

The company did not reveal the customer or the type of systems being supplied, citing confidentiality.

Elbit Systems has also expanded its footprint across Europe, the Balkans, and the UK through a series of new agreements disclosed in recent months.

In Albania, the company is leading a government-to-government deal that includes ATMOS howitzers, SPEAR mortars, and Magni-X and Thor drones, and will assist the state-owned KAYO firm in establishing production lines and a new weapons plant.

Elbit deepened its presence in the country earlier this year through a flight-school agreement and is expected to support Albania’s goal of developing local drone manufacturing by 2027.

The firm has simultaneously continued to sign additional contracts worldwide, including Hermes 900 sales to Singapore and Brazil.

In the UK, Elbit is competing with Raytheon for a $2.7-billion Ministry of Defense contract that would make the company a “strategic partner” responsible for training 60,000 British troops annually.

The prospective agreement follows a separate $1.64-billion Elbit deal with Serbia and builds on the company’s existing role managing the Ministry of Defense’s Project Vulcan, a $75-million simulation-training program for tank crews.

Elbit subsidiaries in Britain have come under sustained protest, and Elbit’s central role in Israel’s war on Gaza has prompted renewed scrutiny, with the UN special rapporteur for Palestine noting that “for Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems … the ongoing genocide has been a profitable venture.”

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Western countries insist on failed strategy to defeat Russia – Mearsheimer

The US and its allies want to subordinate Moscow to their interests

By Lucas Leiroz | November 18, 2025

Western countries continue to insist on an irrational strategy of weakening Russia through military encirclement and economic pressure. This type of strategy has proven unsuccessful over the past few years, as Russia has managed to circumvent sanctions and embargoes, and is winning the conflict in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Western countries refuse to change their plans.

According to John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, the goal of defeating Russia is so important to the West that the US and its allies are even risking losing their own status as a global hegemon in this attempt. Moreover, Mearsheimer made it clear that Ukraine is not important to the West, being merely “cannon fodder” in this policy of hostilities against Russia.

He emphasized that Western countries even want to “defeat Ukraine” along with Russia – in other words, they want to neutralize the political and economic potential of a future integration between Ukraine and Russia. In this sense, the Kiev regime works as a junta in service of foreign powers that want the worst for the Ukrainian people – which explains the draconian policies of forced mobilization, which decimate thousands of Ukrainians without any effective military or strategic gain.

Mearsheimer stated that the West wants to “bring the Russians to their knees.” He acknowledges that so far no clear opportunity has arisen to do this, but makes it clear that the US and its allies would immediately take any opportunity to quickly defeat Russia. According to Mearsheimer’s assessment, the intention behind the conflict in Ukraine and the constant economic sanctions is simply to use military and economic pressure to progressively weaken Russia – but, unlike Western propagandists, he admits that these measures have not been sufficient to “finish Russia off as a great power.”

Mearsheimer also acknowledged the legitimacy of the Russian diplomatic position. He states that Russian President Vladimir Putin has sufficient reasons to distrust the intentions of the Collective West during the diplomatic dialogue. He praised Putin’s political abilities, describing him as a smart leader who understands the real international political situation and who acts considering the possibility of a worst-case scenario. Mearsheimer seems to believe that these virtues, which should be typical of any political leader, are currently rare in the West – which insists on strategies that have already proven useless.

“[The goal is] to defeat Russia and Ukraine, wreck the Russian economy with sanctions, and bring the Russians to their knees (…) We’ve been unable to do that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to do it, of course, we want to do it (…) If the opportunity to do it popped up tomorrow, we would leap at it in a second, we would love to finish Russia off as a great power (…) [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, the last time I checked, has a triple-digit IQ, and that means he’s figured this out, he understands what he’s dealing with (…) [Putin] is assuming worst case in good realist fashion,” he said.

It is important to remember that Mearsheimer is one of the most renowned authors in the field of International Relations in the West. Until a few years ago, he was widely recognized for his work as an academic, but now he has been frequently rejected and criticized in many Western universities for continuing to conduct realistic analyses and refusing to be a mere NATO propagandist. He does not speak as someone “pro-Russia” or “pro-West,” but as an international analyst trying to understand how states deal with global problems. And that is why he speaks publicly about the West’s real intentions regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

It seems increasingly clear that Ukraine has been used by the West since the beginning of the crisis, with no real intention ever to “militarily defeat Russia.” The Western objective is a long-term strategy focused on extinguishing Russian capabilities as a great power. In this game, Ukraine functions as a proxy whose objective is to “wear down” Russian defenses, but it has always been clear to the West that the Ukrainians would be defeated in this move.

On the “economic front,” the sanctions were similarly an attempt to isolate Russia from its traditional European partners – which failed to have an economic impact on Russia, since it is a self-sufficient country, with all the resources it needs, and a strong presence in the emerging Asian market.

Insisting on failed strategies is a serious mistake that could have an existential cost for the West. The path of pressure, isolation, and escalation can only lead to total war – which, in the case of Russia and NATO, would threaten the entire world. The best course of action, from a realistic point of view, is to negotiate while there is still time and establish mutually favorable terms of coexistence in a multipolar world.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

CRAZY New BLOOD PRESSURE Guidelines Could HURT MILLIONS

Dr. Suneel Dhand | November 4, 2025

This really needs to be discussed. Recommendations are way different from other advanced countries.

New Hypertension Guidelines: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topic…

Doctors of Ojais Channel:    / @doctorsofojais  

Dr. Dhand’s Website: https://www.drsuneeldhand.com

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »