Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘Tough Thing to Defend’: FDA Holds Heated Debate on ‘Untested, Unapproved’ Fluoride Supplements for Kids

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 24, 2025

The decision whether or not to prescribe unapproved fluoride supplements to children needs to be based on data — “It can’t be done with opinion,” Dr. George Tidmarsh said Wednesday during a public meeting held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to solicit public input on safety concerns associated with the supplements.

Tidmarsh was tapped this week to lead the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which regulates over-the-counter and prescription drugs.

In May, the FDA moved to ban fluoride supplements after a systematic review of recent science by top government scientists, published in January in JAMA Pediatrics, reported that early fluoride exposure was linked to a decrease in children’s IQ scores.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Tidmarsh said:

“That’s a huge issue. Everybody should be concerned about that. What this is saying is that the fluoride in water was causing a cognitive decrease in the younger children. And the randomized studies say that there is no benefit. So that’s a tough thing to defend.”

“Our job here is to use evidence,” he added, citing the recently updated Cochrane Review on fluoride, which found that water fluoridation offered little to no protection against cavities in children.

Although the FDA never approved fluoride supplements, which come in tablets and lozenges, doctors have for decades routinely prescribed them to children — including babies as young as 6 months old — to prevent cavities.

Research has shown for more than two decades that any benefit to teeth from fluoride comes from topical applications — like toothpaste — not from ingesting the drug.

The supplements are known to cause dental fluorosis, a tooth discoloration that is a marker of fluoride overexposure. Overwhelming evidence now shows that ingesting fluoride is linked to lower IQ in children, neurobehavioral issues and thyroid problems.

Fluoride advocates say safety studies exist, but don’t cite them

Wednesday’s day-long meeting, facilitated by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, turned contentious at times, as researchers presented evidence of fluoride’s risks to children’s health and debated whether to pull the supplements from the market.

Eighteen speakers argued for and against the supplements, including top researchers on fluoride’s toxic effects. Speakers included Kyla Taylor, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the National Institutes of Health and an author on the National Toxicology Program’s recent report and JAMA study showing that fluoride exposure for pregnant mothers and infants is linked to lowered IQ among children.

Christine Till, Ph.D., a professor from York University in Toronto and author of a highly cited 2019 study that reported similar findings, shared research on fluoride’s damaging effects on the thyroid.

Commenters also included pro-fluoride lobbyists and advocates, such as Dr. David Krol, with the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Dr. Scott Tomar, with the American Dental Association (ADA).

In his opening remarks, Tidmarsh warned about the need for data in response to presentations by supplement advocates, including Dr. James Bekker, a pediatric dentist and a member of the Utah Dental Association.

Bekker said, “We’ve got to have a balance. We’ve got to have a situation where the right amount of fluoride is present during development. As we look at ways in today’s world of achieving that balance, supplements play a very important role.”

“When we don’t have fluoride, there are certain things that happen that are very disturbing,” Bekker added. “We have an increase in tooth decay, and we have an increase in the use of emergency services to receive care for dental emergencies.”

However, Tidmarsh called out Bekker, comparing the lack of evidence in his presentation with the presentation by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist associated with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), who pointed out that no randomized controlled studies had ever been conducted on the supplements.

Bekker countered that he didn’t want to overwhelm people with information. “That data is very available. It’s important to understand that,” he said, citing no specific studies.

‘Just take them off the market’

The move to ban the supplements comes on the heels of a federal court decision last September that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take regulatory action to address that risk.

Since then, more than 60 communities and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water. The EPA is appealing the decision.

Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. for decades, long advocated by lobbying organizations like the ADA. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to celebrate it as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

As water fluoridation comes under threat, fluoridation advocates have taken up the cause of defending the untested, unapproved supplements.

“Honestly, it’s ridiculous that we are even having this discussion — the supplements have never been tested, they have never been approved, and we know that early fluoride exposure can harm children,” Dr. Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, told The Defender after the meeting. “Just take them off the market.”

Cole, who presented data on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, said these debates had become tiresome because fluoride advocates repeat the mantra that it is “safe and effective,” and are unresponsive to evidence of fluoride’s harm.

“I can understand why most people who aren’t informed in fluoride science would simply succumb to business as usual,” he said.

Advocates call supplements ‘safe and effective’ despite no safety testing

Dr. Charlotte Lewis, a pediatrician and one of the panelists who defended supplements, was slated to comment on the content of the presentations about fluoride’s risks. Instead, she argued that systemic absorption of fluoride is paramount.

“I want to make sure you understand that when we drink fluoridated water, we are allowing ourselves both a topical and a systemic source of fluoride. And both of these are important.” She said systemic ingestion is particularly important for young children.

Lewis said researchers arguing there is little to no benefit to swallowing fluoride are “biased.”

“What we’ve seen today is people cherry-picking studies and making conclusions without presenting us with the complete data that we need,” she added.

Those observations followed Taylor’s presentation, in which she explained that the National Toxicology Program and the JAMA publication presented an analysis of every available study, and they made all of their data publicly available.

Cole responded to Lewis, quoting her own Pediatrics in Review paper, in which she concluded the disadvantages of supplements were “substantial,” the benefits of fluoride were primarily topical and not systemic, that fluoride supplements cause more dental fluorosis and that their routine use is inconsistent with the way fluoride works — which is topically.

Michael Connett, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, also read from Lewis’ paper during the meeting:

“The preponderance of strong research evidence supports the relative advantages of fluoride toothpaste over fluoride supplements, and this led Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union to recommend against regular use of fluoride supplements in favor of promoting fluoride toothpaste use in young children. The United States should do the same.

“FDA should ban these unapproved drugs from the market.”

Faced with her own research conclusion, Lewis conceded, “I personally think there’s a lot of disadvantages to supplements,” and said she would like to see the U.S. move to a model that promotes fluoride toothpaste.

Several public commenters raised concerns about the health impacts of fluoride. Then representatives from the ADA, American Academy of Pediatrics, other professional medical organizations, several dentists and dental hygienists submitted comments to the FDA advocating for the supplements to remain available.

They stated that the tablets have been proven “safe and effective.” None commented on the fact that they have never been studied.

Fluoride supplements carry ‘more risk than benefit,’ study says

The FDA facilitator referred to fluoride supplements by their official classification, “orally ingestible unapproved prescription drug products containing fluoride,” underscoring the fact that the drugs have never been subjected to an FDA approval process to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks.

The supplements were launched in the 1940s and later effectively grandfathered into the regulatory process. They never underwent the testing for safety and effectiveness typically required by FDA-regulated drugs, and the agency never granted them formal approval.

Before 1938, sodium fluoride had never been used in dentistry. Instead, it was commonly used as a roach and rodent poison. In 2016, FAN filed a citizens’ petition demanding the removal “of unapproved, unsafe, unnecessary, and ineffective sodium fluoride-containing” supplements from the market.

The petition cited a letter the FDA sent to Kirkman Labs, a fluoride supplement manufacturer, informing the company that it couldn’t sell its products because they were new, unapproved drugs not generally recognized as “safe and effective” to prevent dental decay.

The agency concluded that fluoride tablets didn’t meet the “generally recognized as safe” classification.

During public comments on Wednesday, Jay Sanders, FAN education & outreach director, cited a review in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry that found fluoride supplements “when ingested for a preeruptive effect by infants and young children in the United States, carry more risk than benefit.”

Sanders also noted that the CDC and the National Resource Council have both concluded that fluoride predominantly works topically, not systemically.

“A non-FDA approved drug with poor efficacy and with the potential to permanently damage the brain and disrupt the endocrine system should not be dispensed to children in the United States,” he said.

Tidmarsh underscored that understanding the risk-benefit analysis was key. “We’re not talking about taking a drug off the market that was already FDA-approved. In that context, we need to make sure there is a rigorous analysis.”

He added that makers of these drugs could always do real safety and efficacy testing on the products and submit them to the FDA for approval. “If we decide to take sodium fluoride supplements off the market, there’s nothing that would prevent a group from doing the rigorous studies and bringing it back to the FDA.”

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.

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

FLAWED STUDY CLAIMS ALUMINUM IN VACCINES IS SAFE

The HighWire | July 24, 2025

As industry voices scramble to defend aluminum in childhood vaccines, a new Danish study is held up as “proof” of safety, until you look closer. Exclusions, flawed comparisons, and the lack of U.S. relevance raise serious questions. Is the science settled, or just carefully curated?

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

Russia’s Laser Weapon Supremacy: Short Guide

Sputnik – 27.07.2025

While the US and its European pals can only dream about developing laser weaponry, Russia is already light years ahead of them.

Unlike kinetic weapons, lasers do not use ammo and do not require reloading, only a power source, Russian military analyst Alexander Artamonov explained to Sputnik.

Lasers can also display a better rate of fire and would be much harder to evade than, for example, a missile.

“It is more efficient in terms of cost and the rate of fire, depending on the nature of the target you want to hit, and in terms of the time it takes to hit the target,” Artamonov remarked.

Nowadays, Russia, the United States and China run laser weapon programs. When it comes to actual working laser weapons, only Russia can present tangible proof.

Peresvet is a Russian mobile laser system designed to ‘blind’ enemy optical and optical-electronic surveillance systems, including drones, reconnaissance aircraft and even satellites. It has already been adopted by the Russian Armed Forces.

“Peresvet lasers are currently deployed not only in the Moscow region but on the front line as well,” Artamonov said, referring to the Ukrainian conflict zone.

Meanwhile, the US simply lacks the technology and know-how – like, for example, a sufficiently powerful and compact power source – to achieve comparable results.

“They conducted tests in the Indian Ocean. The US lasers perform poorly in water mist – under adverse weather conditions, that is,” Artamonov said.

Simply put, Russia’s Western rivals cannot field actual laser weapons whereas Russia is already developing more advanced and deadly military lasers.

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US should be ashamed of its groundless accusations against China: Chinese envoy

Xinhua | July 26, 2025

The United States should be ashamed of its repeated groundless accusations against China at the UN Security Council this week, said a Chinese envoy on Friday.

Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, rejected the U.S. representative’s accusation against China for the so-called export of dual-use materials to Russia.

“China did not start the Ukraine crisis, nor is it a party to it. China has never provided lethal weapons to any party to the conflict and has always strictly controlled the export of dual-use materials, including drones,” Geng told the Security Council. “We urge the United States to stop shifting blame over the Ukraine issue and creating confrontation, and instead, to make concrete efforts to promote ceasefire and peace talks.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. representative took advantage of an open debate of the council to attack and accuse China over the South China Sea issue. On Thursday, when the council held an open meeting on cooperation between the UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the U.S. representative, once again, started provocation by slandering and smearing China on Xinjiang-related issues.

“Within a single week, the United States has made groundless accusations against China at the Security Council multiple times. This has proved that what the United States cares about is not maintaining international peace and security or promoting the political settlement of wars and conflicts, but rather using this council to attack and suppress other countries and engage in political manipulation to serve its own agenda,” said Geng.

“As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States should be ashamed of and disgraced by its own words and deeds,” he said. “China urges the United States to change course at an early date and engage constructively in the work of the Security Council.”

On the issue of Ukraine, China has been calling for a ceasefire and is committed to promoting peace talks, Geng said, adding that China’s efforts have been widely recognized by the international community.

“For the United States, I would like to say that the international community needs solidarity and cooperation instead of division and confrontation in the face of so many hotspot conflicts and a complex international situation,” he said.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson & Darryl Cooper: Jeffrey Epstein and the culture of corruption

If Americans Knew | July 25, 2025

Tucker Carlson and podcaster Darryl Cooper discuss the Jeffrey Epstein case and its roots in a convoluted culture of corruption at the top of our political system. These are excerpts from an almost three-hour interview streamed live on July 17, 2025.

See the full interview: iakn.org/rottenDC

Wall Street Journal article: iakn.org/WSJEpsteinCalendar

Glen Greenwald video on Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence: iakn.org/EpsteinMossad

Darryl Cooper is the creator of The Martyr Made Podcast, and is the co-host of The Unraveling w/Jocko Willink, and Provoked w/Scott Horton. He lives with his family on his farm in Idaho.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to the PRC

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – July 26, 2025

The official visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the PRC, which took place from July 12 to 18 this year at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, became a notable event in the rapidly developing process of reshaping the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Formally, Albanese’s visit was considered a reciprocal event following the visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in June last year, during the latter’s regular tour of several countries in the region. However, the current visit of the Australian Prime Minister coincided with a period of rapid acceleration in the long-anticipated transformation of the global order and therefore deserves special attention.

Geopolitical uncertainty stimulates the continuation of the China-Australia dialogue

The very fact and nature of this visit serve as yet another testament to the increasing relevance of the “strategy of balancing,” which is being adopted by all more or less significant participants in the current phase of the “Great Game.” This is especially evident in its focal point, which is rapidly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. One of the most striking examples of this trend toward “balancing” has previously been noted in the policy of one of the leading Asian powers — Japan. To reiterate, this trend itself is a characteristic feature of the reshaping of the world order that began with the end of the Cold War, and it is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of various factors of uncertainty in global politics.

Lately, particularly significant among those factors are the ones triggered by the “tariff war,” launched on April 2 of this year by the 47th President of the United States. Although outwardly motivated by fairly understandable considerations of a “purely economic” nature, it has inevitably affected the sphere of political relations. And this includes countries with which Washington remains in military-political alliances that were once formalized through binding agreements.

Australia belongs to such countries. Along with New Zealand, it has been part of the trilateral ANZUS alliance (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) with the U.S. since 1951. Although the alliance had shown few signs of life after the end of the Cold War — primarily due to New Zealand’s de facto boycott — the sharp escalation of the international situation that began at the end of the last decade, as well as the coming to power of the conservative National Party in Wellington in early 2023, appear to be breathing new life into the pact. Australia also participates in “politically non-binding” configurations with the United States (Quad, AUKUS).

All these alliances and configurations are aimed, directly or indirectly, at Washington’s current primary geopolitical opponent — China — which, however, has been Australia’s main trading partner for over ten years. This fact constitutes a fundamentally important departure from the Cold War era and compels Canberra to maintain constructive relations with Beijing in order to ensure the prosperity of Australia’s export-oriented economy.

Let us note that in 2023, Australia exported various goods (mainly from the mining and agricultural sectors) to China worth an enormous $220 billion. At that time, the volume of accumulated Chinese investment in the Australian economy had reached almost $90 billion.

One would think Washington should appreciate the risks Canberra takes by joining overtly anti-Chinese actions in the South China Sea or in matters related to the increasing importance of controlling the Pacific Ocean’s waters. Yet the inclusion of Australia in the list of countries targeted by the “tariff war” waged by the current U.S. President does not suggest that such assessments are present in the thinking of U.S. leadership.

By contrast, the longstanding demand for Australia to “more clearly” demonstrate its stance on the Taiwan issue was once again voiced by the current architect of U.S. defense strategy, Elbridge Colby — and precisely on the eve of Albanese’s visit. In response, during the visit itself, the Australian government issued a reply along the following lines: guided by national interests, our troops will not be sent abroad based on hypotheses regarding the situation in specific regions.

Just a few years ago, Australia’s “older brothers” nearly forced the country into AUKUS, promising to build it a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. But now, the same Elbridge Colby is pondering the possibility of the U.S. pulling out of the project.

In short, Anthony Albanese, who resumed his post as Prime Minister of Australia following the most recent general elections, had ample reason to choose this visit as his first trip abroad — in order to “clarify the situation” in relations with a political adversary.

Some outcomes of the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to the PRC and the prospects for bilateral relations

The entire week-long visit of Albanese to the PRC can be divided into three components: “business,” “general political,” and “associated.” The first was held mainly in Shanghai with the participation of relevant ministers and business representatives; the second took place in Beijing; and the third, involving representatives of public organizations, was held in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province. Regular meetings were held on several bilateral platforms, including those at the level of prime ministers and ministry heads. The high-ranking Australian guest was received by the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

Following the events, several documents were adopted. Of particular note is the “Joint Statement” outlining the outcomes of the latest meeting between the prime ministers. This document includes ten equally important points, of which we will briefly highlight a few here.

Point 3 reaffirms the relevance of maintaining and further developing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, as well as the commitment to “wisely overcome” differences. In point 4, the Australian government reiterated its adherence to the “One China” principle — essentially reaffirming the aforementioned response to U.S. demands concerning the Taiwan issue. A message to the same effect is conveyed in point 6, which emphasizes the importance of a “fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment,” along with its chief regulator, the WTO. Point 8 refers to the intention to further develop this environment within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2015.

Finally, let us point out the potentially greatest challenge to the continued constructive relations between Australia and the PRC. This may turn out to be not so much the renewed U.S. focus on the 1951 alliance, but rather the development of the process of forming (still, it should be repeated, quasi-) allied relations between Australia and Japan. Even more so, since the current leadership of the Philippines is showing increasingly clear interest in joining this emerging regional alliance.

However, within the Philippines itself, resistance to anti-Chinese political trends is growing. In particular, in July of this year, a retired general questioned the usefulness of the well-known 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (in favor of the Philippines) regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea. According to this general, the only practical result of that decision is turning the country into a “second Ukraine.”

It seems that the word “Ukraine” is beginning to acquire a symbolic meaning and now plays a role in global politics similar to that of “Baba Yaga” in children’s fairy tales — stories that are better left unread before bedtime.

Australia would also do well to avoid a prospect defined in such terms. Today, Canberra has every reason to do so, and those reasons were only strengthened during the visit of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as discussed here.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine War Will Now Be Resolved on Battlefield

John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | July 25, 2025

I had the great pleasure of speaking with John Mearsheimer and Alexander Mercouris about developments in Ukraine. The Ukrainian frontlines are falling apart with greater speed and NATO’s recent plans of rearming Ukraine will not be able to turn the tide. Yet, the NATO countries have not sought to end the war through a peace agreement and instead continue to push for an “unconditional ceasefire” without a political settlement. Without an agreement to end NATO expansion, Russia will impose its own settlement through a military victory. Such an “ugly peace” will not benefit anyone.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Interview with Pezeshkian by Carlson: Breaking Through the Wall of Western Lies

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – July 25, 2025

In July 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian gave a historic online interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson. This was not just a conversation—it was a powerful blow to the Western propaganda machine that has portrayed Iran as the world’s primary threat for decades. While the U.S. and Israel fuel the flames of war, bomb nuclear facilities, and sabotage diplomacy, Tehran advocates for dialogue while retaining its right to self-defense and sovereign development.

Amid rising tensions in West Asia, where the West habitually reduces Iranian politics to a caricature of menace, Pezeshkian’s appearance on one of the world’s most influential shows shatters stereotypes. This was not merely a statement—it was a challenge to entrenched narratives, a call for deeper and more critical engagement with Iran’s stance. The interview provides a detailed examination of Pezeshkian’s key arguments, their context, and the significance of this exchange as a reflection of the crisis in international relations. The world must understand the legitimacy of Iran’s concerns, allowing its voice to be heard—without undue demonization or idealization.

The conversation took place during a period of heightened tensions: the U.S. and Israel have attacked Iranian nuclear sites, and Tehran has responded with force. The region teeters on the brink of escalation, where diplomacy is giving way to military confrontation. In this climate, Pezeshkian emerges as a leader combining firmness with a willingness to engage. His assertion that Iran “has not started wars” and “has no interest in prolonging them” reflects both a principled position and an attempt to counter the perception of Iran as a source of instability. He presents himself as a pragmatic actor in international affairs—open to negotiations but deeply distrustful of the West.

Who Is Really Responsible for the Chaos? 

The Middle East stands once again on the edge of catastrophe, and the blame lies with the aggressive policies of Washington and Tel Aviv, who choose to bomb over dialogue and provocation over diplomacy. In his interview, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made it clear: Tehran did not initiate conflicts but will defend its people against external aggression. He stressed that Iran has always advocated peaceful coexistence yet faces relentless Western pressure—sanctions, threats, and interference in its internal affairs. Now, as Tehran demands compliance with international law and respect for its sovereignty, it is accused of “destabilizing the region,” while it is the actions of the U.S. and Israel—support for terrorist groups, assassinations of Iranian scientists, and provocative airstrikes—that drive escalation.

Pezeshkian particularly emphasized Iran’s nuclear program, noting that Tehran has always been open to IAEA inspections and operated within international agreements. Yet, Washington and Tel Aviv exploit intelligence—even inspectors’ data—not for oversight but for sabotage. The president recalled the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyberattacks on infrastructure, and the deliberate undermining of trust in negotiations. “They offer us surrender under the guise of dialogue,” he said. “Every time there’s a chance for peace, the U.S. and its allies sabotage it—imposing impossible demands or tearing up existing agreements.”

Pezeshkian also accused the West of hypocrisy: while Europe and America preach human rights and stability, they have for years funded terrorist groups in the region, armed radicals, and blocked Iran’s independent development. “They want us to submit to their rules, abandon our security and technological progress,” he declared. “But Iran will no longer play by their imposed schemes. If the West chooses force over diplomacy, it will face a proportionate response.”

Pezeshkian reiterated that Tehran remains open to dialogue—but only on terms of equality and mutual respect. “We do not seek confrontation, but we will not allow our country to become another victim of Western hegemony. The responsibility for chaos lies with those who have sown war for years and now shift blame onto their victims.”

 U.S. Double Standards: Peace for Themselves, War for Others

In the interview, Pezeshkian sharply criticized U.S. policy, exposing its hypocrisy and double standards. He argued that Washington has spent decades selling the false image of a “champion of democracy” while being the primary source of global instability. “Iran is always open to dialogue, but how can we trust a country that systematically violates its commitments?” he asked. He reminded viewers that the U.S. not only abandoned the nuclear deal (JCPOA) but continues to impose sanctions despite Tehran’s compliance. “You demand we follow rules you yourselves ignore. Where is the logic?”

The Iranian president listed examples of U.S. interference: the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadegh, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, funding of militant groups in the Middle East, and endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. “You call us ‘sponsors of terror,’ but it is your allies—the Saudi regime and Israeli government—bombing hospitals and killing civilians. Who is the real aggressor?” He referenced the war in Yemen, where Saudi airstrikes—often lacking credible intelligence—have for years targeted not military bases but civilian areas, inflicting suffering primarily on ordinary Yemenis.

Pezeshkian also noted that the U.S. touts a “rules-based order” but disregards it when convenient. “You ignore UN resolutions when they don’t suit you but demand others obey them. You condemn our defense programs while selling billions in arms to dictatorships. This isn’t order—it’s the tyranny of the strong.”

Despite Carlson’s criticism of U.S. interventionism, he remained captive to Western propaganda, framing questions around stereotypes: Iran as a “threat to peace,” the U.S. as a “victim of Iranian aggression.” Pezeshkian countered: “You speak of ‘freedom’ while enforcing sanctions that kill our children by denying them medicine. You talk of ‘human rights’ while enabling genocide in Gaza. Your rhetoric is a smokescreen for maintaining hegemony.”

In closing, the Iranian leader stated that Tehran does not seek conflict but will not accept ultimatums. “We propose dialogue on equal footing, but if Washington prefers the language of force—it will receive a fitting response. History shows empires built on violence inevitably collapse.”

This interview made one thing clear: while the U.S. speaks of “peace and stability,” its actions bring only war and chaos. Iran, despite pressure, remains steadfast in defending its sovereignty and just international principles.

Pezeshkian’s interview is more than words—it is a call for peace that the West ignores because its elites thrive on chaos. As the U.S. and Israel escalate aggression, Iran stands as the sole power offering diplomacy over war. But peace is possible only when the West stops seeing itself as the planet’s master and recognizes other nations’ right to sovereignty. Until then, the bloodshed in the Middle East will stain the hands of Washington and Tel Aviv.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert 

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK could ‘easily’ stab US in the back – Putin aide

RT | July 25, 2025

The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.

Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow.

“If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.

His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea.

Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.

Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives.

Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.

July 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Expansion — The Root Cause of the War in Ukraine

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 23, 2025 

I know there is a lot of interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story and the new revelations from Tulsi Gabbard about Barack Obama and his team’s efforts to fan the flames of Russiagate. I have been all over the Russiagate matter since 2017. Here is the link to a piece I published on December 18, 2018 with the nifty title, The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic. I am glad the information is finally coming out, but I knew this seven years ago. What took them so long? While Tulsi’s revelations are legit, I think she is releasing this information now to distract attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Trump is getting killed in the polls — reportedly he is down 40% points on this issue.

For now, I want to focus on the war in Ukraine, i.e., the Special Military Operation (SMO), and clarify Russia’s motivation and objective for ending that conflict. We keep hearing the phrase, root causes. Russia wants the West to address the root causes. Ok, what are those? I think it is pretty simple — read the draft treaty that Vladimir Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2021 and then you will understand. To spare you reading the entire document (I have linked to it in the next paragraph) I am going to summarize the key points.

The draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021, outlined a series of far-reaching security demands, reflecting Russia’s intent to reshape the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Here are the key points from the published text:

  1. No Further NATO Expansion
    • The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.
    • This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
  2. No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries
    • The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
    • NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations.
  3. Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles
    • Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory.
  4. Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities
    • Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.)
  5. Nuclear Weapons Restrictions
    • All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
    • Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad.
  6. Mutual Security Pledge
    • Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party.
  7. Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms
    • Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline.
  8. Indivisibility of Security Principle
    • Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalizing Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.

Instead of engaging the Russians in negotiations on these matters, Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, essentially told Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, that Russia could take the treaty and shove it up its own ass. So much for diplomacy. Had the US agreed to discuss the draft treaty with the Russians, the SMO would not have been launched in February 2022. But that is the critical point… The US had no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement with Russia. For example, the CIA, using DOD cover, had already invested tens of millions of dollars in bio labs scattered throughout Ukraine. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, it recovered documents that identified a network of 30 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine that were conducting research on dangerous pathogens as part of a bioweapons program. Ukraine was nothing more than a pawn in a Western game of strategic chess, with the ultimate goal of wrecking Russia and taking control of its natural resources. The West was not ready to quit that game.

Until NATO’s threat to Russia is taken off the table, Russia’s war with the West will continue… It represents an existential threat to the Russian people. The talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine do nothing to address or resolve the root causes.

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s weapons plan for Ukraine bound to fail

By Ahmed Adel | July 24, 2025

The idea of resuming the supply of weapons to Ukraine began with applause in the West, but was followed by shock as it turned out that many countries in Europe are not ready for various reasons, either because they themselves do not have the weapons or they openly admit that they do not have the money for such an adventure.

United States President Donald Trump recently said that the Europeans will take on the burden of sending weapons to Kiev by purchasing them from the US, and as a start, they will send the Patriot missile defense systems.

The problem is that there are neither as many Patriot systems nor as many cruise missiles as Ukraine would need to change the catastrophic situation on the front. Some Europeans have caught on to this issue, but in general, most are unwilling to go to Ukraine militarily, to wage war and fight against the Russians, but they are all ready to verbally support it.

Patriot systems are not a miracle weapon that will mark a turning point in the war. Although some analysts have claimed that the Patriot is capable of shooting down some Russian missiles, the system is not capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile traveling at 12,000 kilometers per hour.

Even the US itself does not have enough Patriot missiles after transferring a significant number to Israel. As a result, the total stock of these missiles in the US is 25% depleted, which is why Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has decided, on his own initiative, to halt deliveries of these missiles to Kiev. Moreover, it takes between one and two months to produce one missile.

An additional factor is the price: it is a huge and expensive scale of construction that costs nearly $2 billion, and each rocket costs an average of $1.5 to $2 million.

Another problem is the training of personnel to operate the Patriot systems. Each battery has 92 crew members, and with 17 units, in addition to a reserve, Ukraine will face difficulties in finding so many personnel. Furthermore, training for one Patriot system according to NATO standards takes a year and a half without evaluation. It is also worth noting that in 2023, Kiev sent trained crews to the infantry, but many of them were subsequently lost.

At the same time, Radar stations are not mobile and are often targeted by drones, rendering them ineffective.

Finally, the American logistics system means that if a Patriot malfunction or maintenance cannot be performed in the field, it must be packed, transferred from Ukraine to Rzeszów, Poland, and then loaded onto cargo planes and sent to the US.

Previously, the F-16 fighter jets, as well as the Leopard and Abrams tanks, were also praised as “miracle weapons” in Ukraine. Now, no one mentions that Russia has better weapons that are doing their job on the front to deadly effect.

Europe’s financial situation is a weak point in the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, with many European countries refusing to participate in Trump’s project to purchase American weapons for Kiev. Italy openly admitted that it did not have the necessary funds.

The European Union is on a rather gloomy downward trajectory, following several blows, including the migrant wave, COVID-19, and the Ukrainian crisis, and is clearly starting to lag behind the BRICS and G20 countries, which have several comparative advantages over it.

Brussels lacks relevant resources. Russia has the largest resources among all the power centers, the US has somewhat fewer, and China has even fewer. European military power is dwarfed compared to that of the US, Russia, and China.

At the same time, Russia is a prominent member of intercontinental economic alliances, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. European goods are becoming more expensive and less competitive, yet they want to give more money for weapons to Ukraine.

Trump’s entire plan is a game in which, as a businessman, he tries to make the best possible deal for the US. He is aware of the limited scope of the American role in Ukraine, which will have an inglorious end. The billionaire is realistic and understands that no success can be achieved and that time is not on Ukraine’s side.

In general, things are not going well for the West because Europe is falling even faster, and Trump is facing several ambitious world powers that possess real spheres of influence. He wants to play a subtle game where there is no clear winner. But he does not want a repeat of Saigon or Afghanistan, where American collaborators were grabbing onto departing helicopters. Trump wants to avoid those humiliating scenes and make a deal, showing collegiality with the Russian president as much as possible.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Thai-Cambodian Сonflict Only ‘Suits’ America

Sputnik – 24.07.2025

Earlier on Thursday, there was an escalation of clashes between troops of Thailand and Cambodia on the border, which began with a shootout between ground forces in a disputed area.

The US sees the Thailand-Cambodia escalation “through the lens of divide and rule,” Brian Berletic, geopolitical analyst and former US Marine, told Sputnik.

He warned that if the conflict spirals out of control, it could add to regional conflicts the US is also playing a hand in.

“It will create regional instability, slow growth and development, and give the US an opportunity to reassert influence over the region,” Berletic pointed out.

The analyst noted that the standoff sets back the very economic and political unity China has encouraged across the region. That unity allowed many regional nations “to work out from under generations of Western primacy and outright colonialism,” according to him.

“While both the US and China see the region as a sphere of interest – China sees it through the lens of cooperation and joint development,” Berletic emphasized.

China enjoys close relations with both Cambodia and Thailand, he stressed, adding that Chinese authorities “will almost certainly encourage peace and stability and a quick resolution of the conflict.”

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »