Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘one single cause’: Israel
The Take | Al Jazeera | February 10, 2026
What do we know about Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Israel? We talk with Craig Mokhiber, who spent decades inside the UN system, about what millions of newly released files reveal about Epstein’s effort to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor, why this story remains underreported, and what it means for how power operates globally.
In this episode:
Craig Mokhiber (@craigmokhiber), Human Rights Lawyer and Former UN Official
View on Rumble
Episode credits:
This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé, Chloe K. Li, and Tamara Khandaker, with Melanie Marich, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Alexandra Locke.
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio.
Murdering Khamenei Will Kill Trump’s Presidency
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2026
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was assassinated in what is being described in western media as a joint airstrike operation. Even though the Israeli air-force carried out airstrikes in and around Tehran, it is clear that these were supported by the U.S. military. As such, the U.S. is complicit in the murder of the Head of State of a sovereign nation.
And this unilateral military action once again proved both that the United Nations Charter has lost its value and that the UN Security Council is now broken.
In his opening remarks to the Security Council, Secretary General António Guterres condemned the military strikes by the U.S. and Israel, which also condemning the Iranian response, citing Article 2 of the UN Charter.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
The enormous and ongoing military strikes against Iran were clearly in breach of that Article.
In its response to the Security Council, Iran’s Representative cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individuals or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Article 51 is one of only two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force by UN members set out in Article 2.
The strikes were all the more cynical for taking place part way through talks moderated by the government of Oman. Indeed, Guterres hinted at this in his remarks, saying:
“The U.S. and Israeli attacks occurred following the third round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman.
Preparations had been made for technical talks in Vienna next week followed by a new round of political talks.
I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”
Pakistan’s representative at the Council was more blunt, saying that “diplomacy has once again been derailed as these attacks have happened right in the middle of negotiations.”
Indeed, the strikes confirmed that the UN Security council has become completely unable to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
On the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN Secretary General Guterres warned that “fragile” legitimacy of the Security Council could endanger global peace if it remains gridlocked and fails to fulfil its primary purpose.
All of the the western nations around the UN Security Council table last night showed themselves to be weak and silent, in the face of American’s military might.
As one, they criticised Iran’s unprovoked attacks on Gulf states, as Iranian ballistic missiles targeted U.S. military sites in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait, while also targeting Israel. Self evidently, Iran was targeting U.S. military installations in all of those countries and. Indeed, the U.S.’ fifth fleet Headquarters in Bahrain was struck by at least one ballistic missile. Yet civilian sites also got hit, including in the UAE and in Bahrain.
However, there was no mention at all of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in the statements of western nations at the Security Council, as if they feared U.S. reprisals if they spoke out. Not a single word from the French, the Latvians, the Danes, the Greeks, even the Bahrainis, only that Iran murdered its citizens and should not be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb.
In the end the acting UK Permanent Representative, James Kariuki, who I can tell you from personal experience is the most arrogant and puffed up British diplomat that I ever met, said that:
“Iran must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behaviour, to allow a path back to diplomacy.”
The sitting President of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom (the U.S. takes over the Presidency today) did not utter a single word about the USA or Israel. No attempt, as the country convening the meeting, to seek common ground and some agreement on the way forward.
Britain’ approach was merely to blame Iran in what the Russian Federation representative described in his intervention as ‘victim blaming’. I already knew that Britain had given up diplomacy in 2014, but this appeared yet another nail in a coffin which the UK refuses to bury as it pretends to be a nation of diplomacy. It is not. Britain is now a nation of warmongers without the troops to fight.
While final confirmation of the fact had yet to be provided at that time, the Prime Minister of Israel and President Trump were already celebrating the possible killing of Khamanei. ‘The dictator is gone,’ Netanyahu crowed.
In his social media statement, President Trump called on Iranian people to rise up and take over their country.
Yet within hours, sources within the CIA were already leaking reports that Khamenei may simply be replaced by IRGC hardliners.
As I have pointed out before, rather than fomenting revolution, unilateral military action against Iran may have the opposite effect and mobilise Iranian resistance.
This idea was stated with great clarity by Professor Robert Pape of Chicago University who said:
“With each passing day of regime-targeting airstrikes, we lose control over the political dynamics they unleash.
It becomes less about individual leaders and more about national survival. Less about dissent and more about resistance.
Imagine if a foreign power struck Washington and called on Americans to overthrow their government. Would citizens rally against their leaders — or against the foreign attacker?”
Iran is a country of 92 million people with an army of over 610,000. It is a tightly controlled state and as we saw in January is more than capable and ready to stifle internal dissent, including through violent means. It also does not have an oven-ready opposition lined up in the wings that can walk in unopposed and miraculously take over the country. To suggest that it does takes us into Bay of Pigs territory.
Having already kidnapped the Head of State of one sovereign nation already this year, the United States of America has now murdered another, Ayatollah Khamenei. This will unleash asymmetric threats against the U.S. and all of its allies that Donald Trump will not be able to control. If this military action drags out inconclusively, and I predict it will, then the mid-terms may prove catastrophic for Trump. I predict that the Iranian regime will outlast his.
Here’s what’s behind the US shift on EU allies
The age of institutions is ending, the age of force is back
By Fyodor Lukyanov | Russia in Global Affairs | January 27, 2026
Even invoking international law has become awkward. Institutions look increasingly irrelevant as political and economic processes unfold demonstrably outside them.
This reaction is understandable. The latest targets of actions that violate the UN Charter and other legal norms are leading Western states, the very countries that dominate the global information space. When similar violations affected others in the past, they were treated as regrettable but secondary. The blame was placed on the moral or political shortcomings of the countries involved, including the victims, rather than on a systemic crisis.
Now the system itself is visibly eroding.
The United States has not only discarded conventions; it has begun applying this approach to its own allies. These are partners with whom it once negotiated as equals, or at least as trusted dependents. Decisions are made as if by divine mandate. The result has been consternation in Western Europe and even accusations of betrayal.
Washington is dismantling the world order it once built and led, an order many already regarded as flawed. Since transatlantic ties formed the backbone of the liberal international system, revising them has become a priority for the United States.
After the Cold War, the balance of power was clear. The US and its allies exercised dominance, enforced a single set of rules, and extracted the political and economic “rent” that came with global leadership. But shifts in global power and structural problems in the capitalist system have reduced those benefits while increasing the costs of maintaining hegemony.
The Biden administration represented a final attempt to repair the old model. Its goal was to recreate an ideologically unified and politically invincible West capable of leading the rest of the world – through persuasion when possible, coercion when necessary. That effort failed.
The new slogan is “peace through strength,” paired with “America First.” This approach is now enshrined in key doctrinal documents, including the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Power – not only military, but financial, technological and political – is placed at the center of policy. The only real constraint is America’s own capacity.
If the previous era was described as a “rules-based order,” the new one might be called a “precedent-based order.” Actions create precedents, and those precedents justify further actions. However, these precedents apply primarily to the United States. Others may behave similarly only when it suits Washington’s interests. The right of other states to act “the American way” is not rejected in principle, but it is tolerated only when they are strong enough and do not challenge US priorities.
This logic extends to allies, who now find themselves in an especially uncomfortable position. Under the previous system, they benefited greatly from American patronage. Chief among these benefits was the ability to minimize their own strategic spending by delegating responsibility to the United States. Washington encouraged this arrangement because it supported the functioning of the global order it led.
Today, what was once portrayed as mutually beneficial partnership is increasingly viewed in the US as an unprofitable subsidy. Washington wants to recover past costs and avoid future burdens. This abrupt shift has shocked its allies, but from a strictly material perspective, the reasoning is not irrational. Even a future change of administration is unlikely to reverse this basic reassessment of alliances.
Against this background, the Board of Peace solemnly announced in Davos can easily be dismissed as Donald Trump’s personal ornament. Yet it is revealing. In a world defined by power, those who lack it must compensate by offering something to those who have it.
The most effective offering is financial tribute, hence the billion-dollar contributions. If that is too costly, enthusiastic displays of loyalty may suffice. Membership in such a body appears to function as a form of political insurance: protection from the chairman’s displeasure.
For large, independent powers, participation is almost impossible. A structure in which rights are explicitly limited by the founder’s will, and where procedures remain unclear, contradicts the very idea of sovereignty. Whether or not the Council works in practice is secondary. Its symbolic meaning is clear: recognition of the White House’s supremacy.
The Trump administration understands that the world has changed and is searching for ways to preserve, or even expand, American advantages. Other major players in the emerging multipolar order must do the same, but in their own interests and according to their own logic.
If Washington openly advocates rational egoism grounded in power, others have little reason not to draw their own conclusions.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
Trump aims to create new UN and own it, Brazil’s Lula warns
Press TV – January 24, 2026
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticized US President Donald Trump for attempting to create a new United Nations and be the sole owner of the international body.
“Instead of fixing” the United Nations, “what’s happening? President Trump is proposing to create a new UN where only he is the owner,” Lula said in a speech at an event on Friday.
Lula sounded the alarm about the new world order Trump is creating, warning that the international community is facing a “very critical” political moment in global dynamics, with multilateralism being forced out in favor of US unilateralism.
He warned that “the UN charter is being torn” to pieces by Trump.
Lula said Trump is replacing the UN charter with “the law of the jungle” in reference to his use of the US military to press Washington’s demands.
Lula further criticized Trump for attempting to “rule the world.” Trump “wants to run the world,” he said.
“Every day he says something, and every day the world is talking about what he said,” the Brazilian president noted. “It’s remarkable.”
Instead of using diplomatic means for pursuing foreign policy, “the law of the strongest” is increasingly shaping international relations among nations, he said.
Lula also said that his plan is to explore the possibility of an international meeting to reaffirm the world countries’ commitment to multilateralism and prevent “the force of arms and intolerance of any country in the world” from prevailing.
To salvage what remains of the world order, Lula said, he had added momentum to his diplomatic contacts with his counterparts in Russia, China, India, Hungary, Mexico, and other countries in the hope of countering US unilateralism by creating an international response to strengthen multilateralism across the globe.
UN rapporteur says Israeli demolition of UNRWA compound reflects broader attack on UN system
MEMO | January 23, 2026
The UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory on Thursday cited the demolition of a UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem as sign of a broader attack on the UN system, calling for a special session at UN General Assembly, Anadolu reports.
Francesca Albanese said in a statement that she was “horrified by the Government of Israel’s relentless destruction,” and that “Israel is dismantling the United Nations and international law brick by brick in full view of the world.”
Israeli forces forcibly entered the UNRWA headquarters compound in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of occupied East Jerusalem on Jan. 20 and demolished it using bulldozers and heavy machinery.
“Attacking UNRWA is tantamount to bulldozing the world’s efforts to sustain Palestinian life,” Albanese said, referring to what she described as accompanying “genocidal rhetoric by Israeli officials.”
She said Israel’s Interior Minister Itamar Ben Gvir appeared on camera supervising the demolition and cited a public call by Jerusalem’s deputy mayor outside the compound to “kill and annihilate UNRWA staff.”
“This constitutes yet another instance of genocidal incitement that has become disturbingly normalised in Israel,” the rapporteur warned.
Albanese described the demolition as “an outrageous attack by a UN member State against a UN General Assembly-mandated organisation,” calling it “unprecedented and dangerous.” She urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to request a General Assembly special session and said it was time to consider suspending Israel’s credentials and authorizing sanctions and embargoes.
When the US ‘puts Maduro on trial,’ the world also puts the US under scrutiny
Global Times – January 6, 2026
On Monday local time, a highly anticipated international meeting and an equally high-profile so-called “trial” unfolded on the same day in New York, the US. Inside the UN headquarters in Manhattan, the Security Council convened an emergency meeting to discuss the heightened tensions triggered by US military actions against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The UN secretary-general, multiple Security Council members, and representatives from many countries all stressed the imperative of adhering to the UN Charter and opposing the use of force to resolve international disputes. This cross-regional, cross-alignment consensus underscores a fundamental point: defending international law is not an “interest choice” of any single country, but a basic consensus of the international community.
If Washington seeks to intimidate and deter others through the public spectacle of humiliating a foreign head of state, it has clearly underestimated both the shared consensus and the bottom lines of the international community. From any perspective, US actions lack both legitimacy and legality. Such blatant invasion and abduction flagrantly violate all core norms and fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Under whatever pretext – without Security Council authorization and in the absence of conditions for legitimate self-defense – the use of military force against a sovereign UN member state, including the abduction of its head of state, constitutes outright aggression. Subsequent justifications by the US government only amount to an obvious attempt to cover up the truth: elevating domestic “judicial” accusations – based on tenuous or even false evidences – above international law, and substituting unilateral military actions for multilateral diplomatic mechanisms. In essence, this is unilateral hegemonic behavior that fundamentally challenges, and even negates, the universal binding force of international law.
What such practices undermine is the institutional foundation of the international system. Sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force are the pillars upon which the post-WWII international order rests. If certain countries are allowed to decide, based on their own judgments, “who is guilty, who should be punished, and how punishment should be carried out,” international law will be reduced to a selectively applied tool, and the collective security mechanism established by the UN Charter will be hollowed out. As many representatives pointed out at the Security Council meeting, this issue concerns not only the sovereignty and security of a single state, but also whether international law still retains authority and predictability.
Historical experience has repeatedly shown that replacing rules with sheer power doesn’t bring lasting stability. The overwhelming majority of countries are unwilling to return to a Hobbesian international jungle governed by the law of the strong preying on the weak.
Since the end of the Cold War, instances of bypassing the UN and relying on unilateral military actions to address complex political problems have been far from rare. The results have often been prolonged regional turmoil, breakdowns in national governance, and worsening humanitarian crises. The price paid by the international community has been extremely heavy. The hard-won peaceful environment in Latin America and the Caribbean today should likewise not be undermined by unilateralism and power politics.
The US’ brazen military actions against Venezuela, followed by threats toward Colombia, Cuba, and other countries, once again warn the world that imperialist thinking and hegemonic practices remain the most destructive forces undermining global peace and stability. The United Nations is the core of the current international system, and international law is the fundamental norm governing international relations.
The more turbulent and uncertain the global situation becomes, the more necessary it is to return to the UN framework and manage differences through political solutions such as dialogue, negotiation and mediation to prevent escalation. When Maduro was put on trial, the US was also standing in the dock of the international community. Any action that weakens the authority of the United Nations or denies the binding force of international law will ultimately backfire on the hegemon itself.
No country can act as the international police, nor can any country claim to be the international judge. The international community does not need hegemonic politics based on “might is right,” nor does it require an “imperial order” that places itself above other nations. Only by adhering to true multilateralism and upholding international law, as well as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, can the international system avoid descending into a jungle logic where the strong prey on the weak, allowing the world to move toward a more stable and just direction.
Three Reasons Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as a Global Threat
teleSUR | January 3, 2026
Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela as a flagrant breach of international law and a dangerous escalation that threatens the foundations of the global order. On January 3, 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a forceful statement in response to Washington’s large-scale military operation on Venezuelan soil—an assault that, according to the White House, resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
From Tehran’s perspective, this is not merely a regional crisis. It is a systemic rupture with implications that extend far beyond Latin America. The Iranian Foreign Ministry framed the offensive as a textbook case of unilateral aggression, echoing historical patterns of imperial intervention that have long destabilized the Global South. In doing so, Iran positioned itself not only as a regional power but as a principled voice defending the sanctity of state sovereignty against military hegemony.
The gravity of Iran’s condemnation lies not just in its rhetoric but in its legal grounding. Tehran explicitly cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. According to Iran, the U.S. strikes—reportedly targeting civilian infrastructure alongside military installations—constitute an “unequivocal act of aggression” that must be met with immediate international censure and legal accountability.
Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal Under International Law
The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s statement, released on Saturday, January 3, 2026, pulled no punches. “This criminal, cowardly, and terrorist act by the United States violates every principle of international coexistence,” the document declared—words that closely mirror those used by Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello in Caracas hours earlier.
Iran emphasized the illegality of targeting civilian infrastructure, including electrical grids and residential zones, actions it described as potential war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Tehran rejected any justification based on regime change or alleged humanitarian concerns, stressing that only the UN Security Council holds the legitimate authority to authorize the use of force—and even then, only as a last resort.
The International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed that unilateral military interventions, regardless of motive, violate the core tenets of the UN Charter. Iran’s stance aligns with this jurisprudence, positioning the U.S. operation not as an isolated incident but as part of a broader erosion of multilateralism. “When powerful states bypass the Security Council,” the statement warned, “they don’t restore order—they incite chaos.”
Crucially, Iran also underscored Venezuela’s inherent right to self-defense and resistance against foreign occupation—a principle enshrined in both international law and the historical consciousness of post-colonial states. By doing so, Tehran reinforced its long-standing advocacy for the Global South’s right to political autonomy, free from external coercion.
Iran Joins Global South Coalition Against U.S. Military Aggression
While Western media have focused on the tactical details of the U.S. operation, Iran’s diplomatic response underscores a deeper geopolitical realignment. Tehran’s condemnation places it firmly within a growing coalition of nations—including Russia, China, Cuba, and Colombia—that view the attack as a direct threat to regional peace and global legal norms.
Iran and Venezuela have cultivated close strategic ties for over two decades, particularly through their shared membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and their mutual opposition to U.S.-led sanctions regimes. In this context, Iran’s statement is both principled and pragmatic: it defends a key ally while reinforcing its own narrative as a champion of anti-imperialist sovereignty.
As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Iran has consistently opposed unilateral military interventions—from Iraq to Libya to Syria. The current crisis in Venezuela is seen through that same lens: not as a domestic political issue, but as a test of whether international law applies equally to all nations, or only to the weak.
Notably, Iran called on all UN member states to fulfill their “legal and moral duty” by demanding an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and accountability for those responsible for planning and executing the operation. It also urged the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII—not to authorize further force, but to sanction the aggressor and protect the sovereignty of the victim.
This stance resonates across Latin America, where leaders like Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba have echoed Iran’s concerns. Even within traditionally neutral countries like Uruguay, political figures from the ruling Frente Amplio—such as Rafael Michelini—have echoed Tehran’s alarm, warning that “the prairie of Latin America has been set on fire.”
Geopolitical Context: Iran’s Message to the World
Iran’s condemnation of the U.S. attack on Venezuela carries layered implications. At a time when Tehran faces its own threats of military action—particularly from Israel and hardliners in Washington—its vocal defense of Caracas serves as both a warning and a mirror. By highlighting the illegality of unilateral force, Iran seeks to reinforce norms that could one day protect its own sovereignty.
Moreover, the timing is significant. With Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and strategic location, the U.S. incursion risks triggering a wider confrontation involving Russia, China, and other non-Western powers. Iran’s intervention in the diplomatic arena aims to prevent escalation while strengthening South-South solidarity.
In essence, Iran is not just defending Venezuela—it is defending a vision of international order based on equality, mutual respect, and adherence to law, rather than power projection and regime change. In an era of resurgent great-power rivalry, that message carries weight far beyond the Middle East or Latin America.
Conclusion: A Sovereignty Line in the Sand
Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela not out of blind allegiance, but as a matter of principle rooted in decades of anti-imperialist foreign policy. In a world where unilateralism increasingly masquerades as “strategic necessity,” Tehran’s statement is a stark reminder that sovereignty remains the bedrock of international peace.
Whether the UN will act—or whether the Global South can mount a coordinated response—remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Iran has drawn a line in the sand, and it stands not alone, but alongside a growing bloc of nations determined to uphold the Charter that Washington now appears to have discarded.
UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
Press TV – December 30, 2025
The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees has strongly slammed new Israeli legislation to cut water and energy to UNRWA facilities, calling it a violation of international law and a direct challenge to the United Nations system.
Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), said legislation passed by Israel’s Knesset (Parliament) to cut energy and communication lines of the agency undermines the agency’s mandate.
“Yesterday’s vote by the Israeli parliament passing new legislation against UNRWA is outrageous,” Lazzarini wrote Tuesday on X.
“It is a direct affront to the mandate granted to the Agency by the UN General Assembly and contrary to findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which oblige Israel to fulfil its responsibilities as a UN Member State to UNRWA and the broader UN system.”
According to Lazzarini, the law authorizes Israeli authorities to cut water, electricity, fuel and communications to UNRWA facilities and allows for the expropriation of UN property in occupied East al-Quds, including the agency’s headquarters and its main vocational training centre.
He added that the bill explicitly excludes UNRWA from Israeli legislation implementing Israel’s obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, describing this as “a clear violation” of the Israeli regime’s obligations under international law.
Lazzarini said the move builds on laws passed last year and implemented since January 2025 that banned UNRWA’s operations in occupied East al-Quds and halted all contact between Israeli officials and the agency. He described the legislation as part of a sustained effort to weaken multilateral institutions.
“The new legislation is a further blow to the multilateral system,” he said, adding that it was part of “an ongoing, systematic campaign to discredit UNRWA and thereby obstruct the core role that the Agency plays in providing human-development assistance and services to Palestine Refugees.”
Those services, Lazzarini noted, have been deemed essential by the ICJ for upholding the UN’s commitment to Palestinian rights, including self-determination.
He recalled that in October the court reiterated Israel’s obligation under international law to facilitate, not hinder, UNRWA’s work, calling the new law “an unacceptable rejection of the ICJ’s findings.”
Lazzarini said disputes with UNRWA should be addressed through UN mechanisms, warning against unilateral actions. He pointed to recent incidents on the ground, including the storming of UNRWA’s compound in East al-Quds earlier this month, when Israeli officials tore down the UN flag and replaced it with an Israeli one. In May, he said, authorities forced the closure of UNRWA schools in the city, affecting hundreds of Palestinian refugee children.
“These legislative steps have been accompanied by unilateral actions on the ground that show a repeated disregard for international law,” he said.
Lazzarini warned that the measures are having a direct operational and legal impact on UNRWA’s work across the occupied Palestinian territory, including Gaza, where the agency is central to humanitarian operations.
He stressed that Palestinian refugee rights exist independently of UNRWA under international law and UN resolutions, including Resolution 194, and would endure even without the agency.
He added that the legislation sets a “grave precedent” by rejecting the UN’s independence and immunities, cautioning that failing to push back could undermine humanitarian and human rights work worldwide.
Israel has banned UNRWA from operating in the occupied territories after accusing some of its staff of being involved in the al-Aqsa storm operation in October 2023.
Despite repeated requests from UNRWA for the Israeli regime to provide evidence supporting its allegations, the agency has received no response.
The UN agency has faced deepening financial turmoil since Israel launched a defamation campaign against it.
UN says US must lift restrictions on Iranian diplomats
Press TV – December 11, 2025
The United Nations says the US must allow accredited Iranian diplomats to carry out their work freely, affirming the world body’s position that Washington, as host country, is obligated to permit the unrestricted movement of all UN-based diplomatic personnel.
UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq made the remarks at a press briefing on Thursday when asked whether the world body had received a formal communication from the Islamic Republic regarding tightened restrictions on its Permanent Mission.
“Whenever countries have faced restrictions on their diplomatic personnel, they raise that with us, and then we remind the host country of its obligations under the Host Country Agreement to allow the free movement of diplomats accredited to the United Nations,” he said.
Haq reiterated the organization’s “consistent stance,” noting, “Our standpoint with all nations, not just Iran, is that we want to make sure that the host country allows their diplomats to go about their work freely, once they’ve been accredited here.”
Tehran has sharply criticized the United States for escalating pressure on its UN Mission.
In a statement issued earlier in the day, the Foreign Ministry denounced Washington for abusing its “host-country status” by imposing extensive restrictions on the residence, movement, banking access, and even daily purchases of Iranian diplomats.
It said these measures had been designed to disrupt the normal and lawful functions of Iranian representatives.
According to the statement, Washington’s decision to bar three members of Iran’s UN Mission from continuing their work marked “the culmination” of US violations of the Host Country Agreement.
The ministry condemned the move as illegal, politically motivated, and a breach that raised questions about the United States suitability to host the UN Headquarters.
It warned that such actions undermined the UN’s effectiveness, damaged the credibility of the world body’s secretary-general, and violated the principles of the UN Charter.
The statement urged the UN chief to take action to prevent further infringements of the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic rights and cautioned against allowing the normalization of host-country violations.
Tehran emphasizes that it would continue seeking accountability from Washington and defending its sovereign rights under the Headquarters Agreement.
The latest dispute follows Iran’s earlier complaint in September, when its UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani protested US-imposed movement restrictions on President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and other senior officials attending the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly.
Israeli police swap UN flag for Israeli flag during raid on UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem
MEMO | December 8, 2025
Israeli police removed the United Nations flag from the compound of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in occupied East Jerusalem and raised the Israeli flag in its place, the agency’s commissioner-general said Monday, Anadolu reports.
“Today in the early morning, Israeli police accompanied by municipal officials forcibly entered the UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem,” Philippe Lazzarini said on US social media company X.
“Police motorcycles, as well as trucks & forklifts, were brought in & all communications were cut. Furniture, IT equipment & other property was seized,” he added.
Lazzarini continued that the UN flag “was pulled down & replaced with an Israeli flag.”
The agency’s headquarters, located in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, had been vacated earlier this year following an Israeli decision.
The UNRWA chief described the Israeli action as “a blatant disregard of Israel’s obligation as a United Nations Member State to protect & respect the inviolability of UN premises.”
Lazzarini noted that the UNRWA personnel were forced to vacate the compound “following months of harassment that included arson attacks in 2024, hateful demonstrations & intimidation, supported by a large-scale disinformation campaign, as well as anti-UNRWA legislation passed by the Israeli parliament in breach of its international obligations.”
“Whatever action taken domestically, the compound retains its status as a UN premises, immune from any form of interference,” he stressed.
Israel “is party to the Convention on the Privileges & Immunities of the UN. The Convention makes UN premises inviolable – in other words, immune from search and/or seizure – and makes UN property and assets immune from legal process.”
“There can be no exceptions. To allow this represents a new challenge to international law, one that creates a dangerous precedent anywhere else the UN is present across the world,” Lazzarini warned.
UNRWA was established by the UN General Assembly more than 70 years ago to assist Palestinians who were forcibly displaced from their land.
The UN agency has been facing severe financial difficulties since Israel launched a defamation campaign against UNRWA, claiming that staff members were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks.
Despite UNRWA’s requests that the Israeli government provide information and evidence to back up the allegations, the agency has received no response. Following Israel’s accusations, several key donor nations, including the US, suspended or paused funding.
After 75 years: Could Israel actually lose its UN membership this time?
By Dr Mohammad Yousef | MEMO | November 27, 2025
On 24 November 2025, civil-society actors in Chile launched a campaign calling for the expulsion of Israel from United Nations, invoking UN Charter Article 6. They base their call on what they describe as “continuous and systematic violations” of international humanitarian law and repeated breaches of UN resolutions, particularly in light of ongoing Genocide in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there.
Article 6 of the UN charter states: “A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
This is not the first such call. In September 2025, following Israeli airstrikes on Qatar targeting Hamas officials, Pakistan demanded Israel’s suspension or expulsion from the UN for violating international law and threatening international peace and security. Pakistan’s UN ambassador warned that Israel’s actions risked regional stability and global lawlessness.
Similarly, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), has repeatedly urged Israel’s suspension from the UN, Citing the crime of genocide that Israel committed against Palestinians. Targeting UN premises, violating the UN charter and labeling the UN as a terrorist organization.
The UN Charter provides mechanisms for suspension or expulsion of member states under Articles 5 and 6, while Article 6 deals with the expulsion, Article 5 deals with the suspension.
Historically and since its inception after World War II, the UN has never expelled or suspended any state member from the organization under Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter. However, the attempt to block South Africa from attending UNGA meetings was successful, following the U.N. General Assembly approval of the Credentials Committee’s recommendation to cancel the credentials of South Africa, citing the country’s Apartheid-era racial policies.
Multiple attempts were made in order to expel Israel from the UN in the past, but all of them remained unsuccessful due to either political pressure or threats to use the Veto power. The first attempt was in 1975 when Algeria and Syria led a joint campaign aiming for the suspension of Israel from the UNGA, this step requires the recommendation of the UNSC, and due to the U.S veto threat the process was halted. However, alternative ways were explored in order to isolate Israel leading to the UNGA Resolution 3379 adopted in November 1975, which declared Zionism to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination”.
Another attempt was organized by 34 Muslim states and the Soviet Union (USSR). These states sent a letter to the UN General Assembly Credentials Committee requesting Israel’s expulsion from the UNGA. The letter stated:
… “Israel’s continued defiance and its flagrant and persistent violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. Furthermore, we wish to reiterate Israel’s contempt and its defiant challenge to the resolutions of the United Nations as they relate to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East.”
The states further emphasized Israel’s non-adherence to the UN Charter and its violations of obligations, arguing that this makes Israel a non–peace-loving state, which is a requirement for UN membership. This attempt was obstructed by Israel’s allies in the US and western countries. As a result, it failed to gain the required two-thirds majority and remained unsuccessful.
IN 2018, the Kenest passed the Nation-State bill, which in its Article 1(a) states that: “The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established. “The president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, called the Nations-State Law, “Illegitimate, Racist and apartheid”. Following this, and in response to this Law, the PA lunched an initiative calling for Israel’s expulsion form the UN. However, this initiative failed and did not progress due to the U.S threat to cut UN funding.
Given the above precedent, the campaign to expel Israel from the UN is legally grounded — but faces dıfrrent types of political pressure and institutional barriers. Any real proposal would require: (a) adoption by the Security Council; (b) absence of vetoes by any of the five permanent members (P5). Given current geopolitical alignments, particularly the support for Israel by some P5 states, such a proposal is unlikely to pass.
Nevertheless, the fact that the legal mechanism exists, coupled with mounting global outrage over Israel’s violations and Genocide in Gaza — equip the call with significant symbolic and political weight. Even if immediate expulsion is unrealistic, pressing for such a step can be part of a broader strategy of international isolation, reputational pressure, and incremental delegitimization.
Because expulsion or suspension of a state member from the UN under Article 5 and 6 is difficult, as it must go through the UNSC and most likely face U.S Veto power. As of September 2025, the U.S has used its veto 51 times to shield Israel. Acting within the framework of the UN General Assembly has a greater chance of success, particularly given the recent overwhelming support for Palestine and the noticeable shift in many states’ positions in favour of Palestine.
In May 2024, by an overwhelming majority vote, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the Palestinians’ right to admission to the UN and to obtain full membership in the organization. The resolution passed with 143 votes in favor, 9 against, and 25 abstentions. Similarly, in September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling on Israel to bring an end without delay its unlawful presence, the resolution passed with 124 votes in favour,14 against, and 43 abstentions. On 12 September 2025, the “New York Declaration” supporting a two-state solution was endorsed by 142 UN member states, with just 10 votes against and 12 abstentions.
As with the South Africa case, the credentials of Israel’s delegation can be blocked following a letter to the UNGA Credentials Committee and a two-thirds majority vote by UNGA member states. This scenario is likely to succeed, given the growing global support for the rights of the Palestinian people within the UN.
There is another alternative: appealing to the UN General Assembly resolution “Uniting for Peace.” Adopted on 3 November 1950 (during the Korean War), it was designed to empower the GA when the Security Council is deadlocked by vetoes. Under this mechanism, the GA can convene special emergency sessions and recommend collective measures—including economic, political, or even armed action—against states threatening peace when the UNSC fails to act.
Since proclaiming itself a state on historic Palestine, Israel has repeatedly been accused of war crimes, genocide, and violations of the UN Charter, posing serious threats to international peace. After October 7th, 2023 until today, over 100,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, more than 1.9 million Gazans and tens of thousands of West Bankers have been forcibly displaced by Israel, Gaza’s healthcare and educational systems massively destroyed by Israel. Within a year or less, Israel has attacked seven countries, violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, Tunisia, and the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel continues to expand its occupation and settlements into the West Bank and Syria, planning de jure annexations and maintaining indefinite military presence.
Given that Israel faces no serious international pressure and collective sanctions, the UN and international community—including states and NGOs—must apply maximum pressure through all possible means. The call to expel Israel from the UN or the suspension of its membership are not a rhetorical measure only — they rest on the clear text of Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter. Yet, Political pressure, institutional realities — especially the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members can halt any efforts in this regard.
In this very critical moment in the prolonged legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people against the apartheid regime in Israel, calling for Israel’s expulsion or suspension from the UN, or blocking its credentials in the UNGA, is not only justified but necessary to stop the ongoing genocide and grave violations. States and the international community, through the UN, are obligated to translate diplomatic commitments into tangible actions—isolating Israel politically, legally, economically, and diplomatically—and holding it accountable for its crimes and violations of the UN Charter and international law.
Iran demands accountability after US admits role in June strikes
The Cradle | November 27, 2025
Iran’s UN ambassador on November 27 urged the Security Council to act after Washington publicly confirmed its direct role in June’s joint US-Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the operation an unlawful act of aggression that demands full accountability and reparations.
In a letter addressed to the UN secretary-general and Security Council president, Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the latest US Air Force admission – acknowledging that US F-35s penetrated Iranian airspace and escorted B-2 bombers to strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – confirms “once again” that the US directly participated with Israel in attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities.
He cited the 24 November US Air Force statement announcing that “In June, the 34th was called upon to escort a strike package, including B-2 Spirit bombers, to strike underground nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan during Operation Midnight Hammer,” and that “On 22 June, a formation of F-35s … was the first aircraft to penetrate Iranian airspace.”
Iravani noted that these disclosures align with US President Donald Trump’s earlier remarks openly asserting Washington’s leading role.
The ambassador described the 12-day campaign as an act that targeted Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, adding that the operation included deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian sites.
He wrote that the US is obligated under established international law to provide full reparation, including restitution and compensation for all material and moral damage.
According to Iravani, Washington’s admission also establishes the individual criminal responsibility of US officials involved in the operation.
He reiterated Tehran’s “full and unequivocal” right to pursue all legal avenues to secure accountability and recover losses resulting from what he called an internationally wrongful act.
Iravani urged the Security Council and the wider UN system not to remain silent, saying they must take measures consistent with their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security, ensure accountability of both the US and Israel, and bring those responsible to justice. He requested that the letter be circulated as an official UN Security Council document.
Featured Video
IS YOUR SUNSCREEN CAUSING CANCER?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Skin Cancer
On Dermatology
Lies are Unbekoming | May 5, 2024
… This stack is about the Dermatology Cartel, that has relied on the Cancer “wall” and the demonization of the Sun; to generate all the force and energy it needs progress towards its profit goals. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Culture minister: Israeli attacks devastate South Lebanon’s heritage
- Israel’s Ben-Gvir faces US complaint over alleged war crimes: Rights group
- US-backed deal favors Israel at expense of Lebanon’s national interests: Amal Movement
- Israel sold advanced defense systems to Qatar, Saudi Arabia: Report
- With Iran and the US Exchanging Blows in the Persian Gulf, the MoU’s Survival Is in Doubt
- IS YOUR SUNSCREEN CAUSING CANCER?
- When an Ancient Spice Puts Modern Psychiatry to Shame
- What Is Really in Childhood Vaccines
- Vaccines are not a panacea
- Google’s New reCAPTCHA Wants Your Camera Access and 21 Points of Your Hand
- If Americans Knew
- The Executioner’s Noose, Not the Scales of Justice: Crime and Punishment in Israel and Palestine
- Foreign Agent Brad Parscale Turning World Cup Fans Into Psyop Guinea Pigs
- Israel kills, injures women and children in Gaza “safe” zone – Daily Update
- Israel kills Gaza’s public servants again – this time it’s police – Daily Update
- Four Reasons the Netanyahu-Backed Plan to ‘End’ U.S. Military Aid to Israel Is a Scam
- Archbishop of Canterbury vows to help Palestinians achieve ‘freedom you deserve,’ calls for end to Israeli occupation
- The scars left behind by Israel’s white phosphorus in Lebanon
- Drones and decomposing babies: What’s in UN report on Israel’s genocide of Palestinian children
- Crimson Thread: The new Israeli separation wall that cuts through the ‘breadbasket of Palestine’
- Gaza ceasefire talks back to square one as Israel changes the rules – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Heat And Drought In Germany Are Nothing New, Archive Media Show
- Lousy Station Siting: Swirling Controversy Surrorunds Germany’s Latest “New Alltime Record High” Temperature
- 2025 Study: Cloud Effects Reduce Downwelling Longwave Radiation, Overriding The CO2 Impact
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
Aletho News 