What Explains Washington’s and Israel’s Opposition to Questioning Ghislaine Maxwell?
By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute for Political Economy | July 24, 2025
Attorney Alan Dershowitz allegedly is on the Epstein client list, but he calls for the release of the Epstein files and for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell under “use immunity,” which compels her to testify. In other words Dershowitz wants to clear his name by getting to the bottom of the Epstein Saga.
The saga is that Epstein was a Mossad spy financed by Israel out of the billions of dollars that Israel extracts from American pocketbooks each year. Epstein’s job was to implicate the American ruling establishment in sex crimes that enabled Israel to blackmail Washington into conforming US Middle East policy with Israel’s policy.
That done, Washington destroyed at the expense of American lives, money and reputation five counties for Israel.
Now Netanyahu wants Americans to destroy Iran for Israel. Can Washington refuse when Netanyahu has the blackmail information accumulated by Epstein for Mossad?
The problem is that neither Washington nor Netanyahu want Ghislaine to testify.
How long will it be before we hear that Ghislaine has committed suicide in her suicide proof prison cell?
Obama authorized ‘implausible’ reports about Putin supporting Trump – House Intel Committee

RT | July 23, 2025
Former US President Barack Obama authorized the release of reports claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, despite CIA warnings that the information was unreliable, according to a newly declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee.
Last week, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard published more than 100 documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by Obama-era officials to fabricate the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. The effort, she said, aimed to undermine Trump’s legitimacy after his 2016 election victory.
On Tuesday, the DNI released additional declassified findings focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Putin sought to influence the election in Trump’s favor. That assessment became a central foundation for the Russiagate probe.
New evidence shows that the ICA included intelligence that CIA Director John Brennan knew was weak or unverifiable. Brennan reportedly led the drafting process and pushed for the inclusion of discredited material, including the Steele dossier, despite objections from CIA officers who warned there was no direct evidence of Putin backing Trump.
The report also found that Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the assessment’s release before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal coordination channels within the intelligence community.
Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and has accused Obama officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and his top aides.
She has also revealed that internal US intelligence consistently concluded Russia had neither the capability nor the intent to interfere in the 2016 election, but these assessments were suppressed.
Russia has denied any interference in US elections, while Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow does not prefer any particular candidate.
Palestinian factions reject Israeli vote on West Bank sovereignty
Al Mayadeen | July 23, 2025
Palestinian resistance factions strongly condemned the Israeli Knesset’s vote on Wednesday in favor of a bill to impose “Israeli sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank and Jordan Valley, calling it a dangerous escalation and a blatant violation of international law.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, described the Knesset’s approval of the bill as “null and void,” stressing that the decision had no legitimacy and constituted a direct challenge to international resolutions. In a statement, Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to unite and escalate resistance “in all its forms” to thwart the occupation’s plans to annex the territory.
Formalization of control expands settler-colonialism
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) warned that while the occupation already exerts de facto control over the territory, the formalization of this through legislation strengthens its colonial grip, expands the settler-colonial and Judaization project, and advances a policy of ghettoization and forced displacement.
The PFLP emphasized that unity and resistance remain the only path to confront what it described as a “dangerous scheme,” equating its severity to the genocidal campaign waged by the Israeli occupation in Gaza.
The Palestinian Resistance Committees said the Knesset vote further exposes the colonial nature of the Israeli entity, adding that “the enemy’s ambitions extend beyond Palestine and target the entire region.” The committees called on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, al-Quds, and the territories occupied in 1948 to “take the initiative, launch a popular revolution, and ignite a widespread intifada to thwart Zionist schemes.”
‘Legally and morally void’
Fatah also rejected the bill “categorically,” calling it legally and morally void. In its statement, the movement reaffirmed that the West Bank, including East al-Quds, is occupied Palestinian land, and the Israeli occupation has no legal authority to impose sovereignty over it under any pretext.
Fatah urged the international community, particularly the United Nations and the European Union, to support a Palestinian legal campaign before the International Court of Justice and other international legal bodies. The movement also called for full recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East al-Quds as its capital, as a clear political response to annexation efforts.
PA condemns Knesset decision
Palestinian Authority official and Deputy President Hussein al-Sheikh also condemned the Knesset’s move, calling it “a direct assault on the rights of the Palestinian people and a serious escalation that undermines peace prospects and the two-state solution.”
Al-Sheikh described the unilateral Israeli measures as flagrant violations of international law and global consensus, urging states worldwide to recognize the State of Palestine and denounce the Knesset’s decision.
The bill passed with 71 votes in favor and 13 opposed. While it carries no binding legal effect, the legislation asserts that the West Bank and Jordan Valley are “an inseparable part of the historic homeland of the Jewish people” and calls for “strategic steps” to solidify this so-called historical right in pursuit of Israeli “national security.”
Red states back Israeli annexation of West Bank
Several Republican-led states in the US have moved forward with legislation compelling the official use of the term “Judea and Samaria” instead of the West Bank, following a bill passed in Arkansas last month.
The legislative push is part of a broader effort to support the annexation of occupied Palestinian territories. Spearheaded by Yossi Dagan, head of a regional council representing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, the initiative aims to influence US policy in favor of extending Israeli control over the area.
Dagan has framed the ethnic cleansing campaign as one of “historic justice,” seeking to persuade US leaders, including President Donald Trump, to support the annexation of what he described as “the land of the bible.” According to Dagan, using the term “Judea and Samaria” in official US documents is part of reinforcing that narrative.
The decision by Republican states to consider adopting the terminology followed meetings with Dagan during the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). After Dagan’s address, ALEC unanimously endorsed the initiative, giving the proposal broader momentum across GOP-controlled legislatures.
Federal-level support grows
In addition to state-level initiatives, a similar move is underway at the federal level. Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that the committee intends to adopt the historical terms promoted by Dagan. Mast’s support signals growing alignment between certain US political circles and Israeli settlement interests.
States reportedly considering the bill include Utah, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, Iowa, and Oklahoma. These bills also include language declaring the West Bank as the biblical cradle of the Jewish people, arguing it should not be considered occupied territory.
The adoption of such terminology by US lawmakers carries significant political implications. By aligning with Israeli settlement narratives and rejecting the international consensus that views the West Bank as occupied territory, this legislation risks legitimizing ongoing ethnic cleansing and violations of international law.
This comes as settler attacks escalate across the occupied West Bank as part of the Israeli occupation’s ongoing efforts to annex Palestinian territory. These incursions are taking place under direct military protection and with full political backing from the Israeli government, according to rights groups and local sources.
‘Peacemaker’ Trump beats Biden’s bombing record since return to office: Report
The Cradle | July 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump has ordered hundreds of airstrikes across West Asia and Africa since his return to office, carrying out more attacks in the first five months of his second term than former president Joe Biden did during his entire presidency, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).
“In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US airstrikes (529) as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration (555),” said ACLED President Clionadh Raleigh.
Among the countries bombed by Trump are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The majority of strikes were carried out against Yemen.
“The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn’t about geography – it’s about frequency,” Raleigh added.
The surge in attacks contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, which framed him as “anti-war.”
In March this year, Trump renewed the Biden government’s campaign against Yemen with much greater intensity.
Months of brutal and deadly attacks struck the country in response to the Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) naval operations against Israeli interests and its missile and drone strikes in support of Palestine.
Yemeni forces consistently responded to US attacks by targeting US warships in the Red Sea, during both Biden and Trump’s terms.
A ceasefire between Sanaa and Washington was reached in May, after the US campaign burned through munitions and failed to impact Yemeni military capabilities significantly.
However, the campaign took a heavy toll on civilians and compounded the humanitarian crisis the country has faced due to over a decade of war.
An investigation released by Airwars last month revealed that Trump’s war on Yemen killed almost as many civilians in less than two months as in the last 23 years of Washington’s military action in the country combined.
“In the period between the first recorded US strike in Yemen to the beginning of Trump’s campaign in March, at least 258 civilians were allegedly killed by US actions. In less than two months of Operation Rough Rider … at least 224 civilians in Yemen [were] killed by US airstrikes – nearly doubling the civilian casualty toll in Yemen by US actions since 2002,” it said.
In Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, Trump has also continued to strike what Washington says are ISIS and Al-Shabab targets.
Despite vowing to end “forever wars,” Trump has recently threatened to expand them.
On 22 July, the US president threatened to launch new attacks on Iran, after late June bunker-buster strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities which were carried out on behalf of Israel.
Iranian Navy helicopter intercepts US destroyer in Sea of Oman
Press TV – July 23, 2025
An Iranian Navy helicopter has intercepted the US destroyer USS Fitzgerald in the Sea of Oman, issuing warning signals and ultimately forcing the American vessel to alter its course southward.
According to a statement from Iran’s military, the US warship approached waters monitored by Iran, prompting a rapid-reaction helicopter from the Third Naval Region of the Iranian Army’s Navy (NEDAJA) to deploy.
The helicopter hovered over the destroyer and delivered a clear radio warning to steer clear of Iranian-monitored waters.
In the ensuing standoff, the crew of the USS Fitzgerald threatened to engage the helicopter if it remained in proximity.
Iran’s Army Air Defense Command then intervened, declaring the helicopter under full air defense protection and ordering the American destroyer to change its course.
According to the statement, the USS Fitzgerald complied, heading south away from the disputed area.
The US military has not issued a public statement on the incident, which unfolded amid elevated tensions in the Persian Gulf following the recent US-Israeli war on Iran.
Iranian and US naval forces have had a long history of encounters in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz since the 1980s.
In 2019, Iran shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk drone near the Strait of Hormuz due to airspace violation.
The Iranian Navy frequently conducts large-scale drills in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, showcasing its capabilities and signaling deterrence against foreign powers.
US congresswoman labels Zelensky ‘dictator’
RT | July 23, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts.
Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general.
Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava.
“Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”
Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House.
“He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”
Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.
Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.”
Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.
US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February.
Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.
West Doubles Down on Failed Wars in Ukraine & Middle East
Glenn Diesen | July 22, 2025
Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the West is doubling down on the failed wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
AOC Tries to Defend Vote Against Amendment to Cut $500 Million in Israeli Military Aid

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is trying to explain away her “no” vote on an amendment to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment, introduced by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), would have cut $500 million in U.S. funding for nuclear-armed Israel’s missile defense programs.
“People exploding this false messaging that I voted for a bill [and] funding that I quite literally voted NO on. The threat environment this morning is scary,” the progressive lawmaker wrote on Bluesky Monday afternoon. “Doesn’t help anyone. Drag me for the position if you disagree but don’t lie. It’s out of control. Saying I voted for this funding is false.”
“If you believe neo-nazis [sic] are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!” she added on X.
Earlier in the day, NBC 4 New York reported that Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx congressional office was doused with red paint overnight. A sign was posted outside that read “AOC FUNDS GENOCIDE IN GAZA.”
Ocasio-Cortez joined 421 of her colleagues in the House of Representatives in voting against the Greene Amendment, which only received six votes. The amendment would have prevented the Department of Defense from strengthening Israel’s air and missile defense systems, including the Iron Dome. It would also have prevented Congress from effectively abrogating the Symington Amendment to the International Security Assistance and Arms Exports Control Act of 1976, which bans the provision of U.S. military aid to any country that develops nuclear weapons technology in contravention of safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Ocasio-Cortez’s latest comments come days after she initially tried to head off concerns about her vote. “Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it,” she wrote on X Saturday morning. “What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end.”
“I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza,” she added.
Ocasio-Cortez’s “no” vote earned her a rebuke from the Democratic Socialists of America. “An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ [sic] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military’s Iron Dome program,” the DSA wrote on Saturday.
More Reckless Than Ever: NATO’s Proxy War with Russia
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
The strategy that the United States and its European allies have adopted to use Ukraine as their military proxy in a war to weaken Russia has always involved a sizable element of risk. At some point, Russian leaders might no longer be content with just attacking the puppet that NATO members were using to torment their country. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues could decide to attack one or more of the puppeteers. The chances of such an escalation are increasing. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s principal deputy, issued a warning on July 17 that his country might launch “preemptive strikes” if the Western powers continued to boost their support for Ukraine’s military efforts.
Medvedev’s statement occurred just after President Donald Trump executed a major U.S. policy reversal regarding Ukraine. Instead of phasing out military aid to Kiev, the administration announced a resumption of weapons shipments, including Patriot air defense missiles that other NATO members would purchase from the United States. Such a stance was reminiscent of President Joe Biden’s enthusiastic support for Ukraine’s war effort, and it stood in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign and the initial weeks of his second term that indicated a determination to end Washington’s entanglement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Unfortunately, the new sale of Patriots is just the latest in a long series of provocations that the United States and NATO have conducted against Russia since full-scale fighting between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022. Both Medvedev and Putin have contended previously that NATO is already at war with their country, given the extent of military assistance that alliance members have extended to Kiev—especially the provision of long-range missiles. Medvedev specifically raised the prospect of Russian retaliatory strikes on NATO bases.
Their charge has merit. Not only have NATO members collectively provided a tsunami of weapons to their military proxy, but also several of them have assisted Ukraine’s war effort in other crucial ways. There is credible evidence that both British and American intelligence agencies (and possibly those of other NATO countries) have provided crucial data to Ukrainian forces attacking Russian military transport planes and other targets. A similar form of assistance apparently was given to Ukrainian forces that attacked Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea.
Providing such assistance to one party in an ongoing war could quite reasonably be interpreted as an act of war against the opposing party. Yet several alliance members are incurring such risks. A German general justified his country’s decision to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. But as one critic noted, what the general conveniently left out “is that these weapons will be operated by German personnel from Wiesbaden. In other words, Germany is turning one of its own cities into a legitimate target for Russian retaliation.”
Although the evidence of committing an act of war is less definitive in other cases, there were strong indications that one or more NATO member states were involved in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The accounts that American and European media propaganda campaigns circulated certainly lacked even minimal credibility. The original cover story that Russia (for reasons that remained both vague and implausible) destroyed its own multi-billion-dollar pipeline did not even pass the proverbial laugh test. Even U.S. and other NATO officials quickly backed away from that attempted explanation. However, the substitute version was even more preposterous. That iteration asserted that a band of Ukrainian activists (but activists who had absolutely no connection to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government) conducted the sabotage raid using a civilian yacht manned by divers not in the country’s military.
Since those attempts at a plausible cover story flopped, NATO officials and their pet media outlets have gone strangely silent. Hopes by the transatlantic foreign policy “blob” that the pipeline story will just go away are understandable, since Moscow would have grounds for regarding the attack on its pipeline as a brazen act of war.
More recently, murkiness surrounds Ukraine’s bold move deploying swarms of drones to attack Russia’s strategic bomber fleet stationed at four air bases deep inside Russia. Kiev understandably bragged about such a military and propaganda victory. However, Washington’s possible role in this episode remains a matter of conjecture. Media outlets friendly to Ukraine asserted that the United States knew about the operation and expressed no objection. The White House initially contended that Ukraine had given no advance notice, but the U.S. account has become less clear with the passage of time.
It is an important detail. It seems unlikely that Ukrainian forces could have carried out such a complex operation so deep inside Russian territory without intelligence information similar to that given to Kiev in its earlier assaults against Russian troop transports and warships. The probable conclusion is that Kiev likely was aided by either U.S. intelligence operatives or operatives from another NATO. In either case, it would be yet another act of war committed against the Russian Federation. One can readily imagine the reaction from the United States if Russia (or any other adversary) waged an attack on the U.S. strategic bomber fleet and destroyed a significant portion of the fleet.
Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine acted totally alone, that scenario would mean that NATO’s proxy had gone rogue and is now acting on its own. In mid-July, President Trump raised tensions with the Kremlin even more. With typical Trumpian verbal incontinence, he asked Zelensky if (apparently in light of the successful raid on the bomber bases), Ukraine could strike a target such as Moscow deep inside Russia. It appeared to be an unsubtle hint that the United States would not be displeased by such a move. Trump did say many hours later that he was not calling on Ukraine to attack Moscow, but that poisonous idea was now firmly planted. On July 20, Ukraine launched a drone assault on Moscow.
The United States and its NATO allies are engaging in irresponsible behavior that could turn the already dangerous Ukraine proxy war against Russia into a direct armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia. Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Soviet and American leaders had the good sense to implicitly keep their respective homelands off limits. The current crop of “leaders” on the Western side are not exercising such wisdom or basic prudence. They are playing the international equivalent of Russian roulette.
How close was Jeffrey Epstein to Israel’s Mossad?
The Grayzone | July 18, 2025
The Grayzone’s Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal discuss allegations that late financier and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset.
Al-Tanf and the Yinon Plan for Syria: Israel’s Fortress of Fragmentation
21st Century Wire | July 21, 2025
Oded Yinon, author of the 1982 paper “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” is often cited regarding Israel’s aim to divide neighboring Arab and Muslim areas into ethnic mini-states. Yinon was a former advisor to Ariel Sharon, a former senior official with the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and a journalist for The Jerusalem Post. Although Yinon downplays the paper’s direct relevance to current geopolitics, its ideas have arguably become foundational to Zionist policy; balkanization was crucial for Israel’s establishment and continues to be a strategy for its military dominance in the Middle East, especially in Syria. His paper is commonly known as the “Yinon Plan.” Within it, you can read:
“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.”
The fragmentation of Syria was always an integral part of the Yinon plan, with its operational headquarters not in Tel Aviv but at the US Al-Tanf base, located at the tri-border area between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, and along one of the main highways between Baghdad and Damascus.
Syrian journalist and TV presenter, Haidar Mustafa, wrote for The Cradle on December 2, 2024, about the importance of the Al-Tanf base, one of the most strategic military garrisons for the US occupation in Syria, which acted as a launching platform for countless Israeli overt and covert operations:
“The US coalition’s mission against the Islamic State quickly evolved into a broader strategy of occupying parts of Syria, with the Al-Tanf base crucial to securing its influence and supporting Israeli interests amid growing local resistance.”
In a recent post on X, Lebanese analyst Ibrahim Majed articulated several points about the Al-Tanf base and the immense role the American base has played in advancing Israel’s Yinon Plan, describing it as a “Strategic Outpost for Greater Israel and Israel’s Fortress of Fragmentation.” His post inspired the title of our post today.
Recently, we covered the “David’s Corridor”, a land route in Israel that extends from the occupied Golan Heights through southern Syria to the Euphrates. This route represents Israel’s most crucial foothold in the centre of West Asia, which ultimately benefits from the protection provided by the Al-Tanf base. Should Israel manage to gain control over the southern provinces of Syria, it will be considerably closer to connecting with the territories held by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the east, through the American Al-Tanf base located near the Iraqi border, achieving several goals including the non-negligible control of the corridor, the fragementation of Syria and in time the replacement of the “Shiite Crescent” by an “Israeli Crescent”. Israel aims to establish a secure route that begins in the Golan Heights, traverses through the Suwayda province, continues across the eastern Syrian desert where the US base at Al-Tanf is situated, and extends to the Kurdish-controlled area of Hasakah, ultimately reaching Iraqi Kurdistan along the Iranian border. This explains the continued US military presence in north-east Syria and why last week, on two occasions, a large CIA delegation found itself at the Qasrak base in Al-Hasakah. This is how Israel intends to permanently cut off the Tehran-Beirut road.
Regarding the Druze community in Syria, Israel uses them primarily as a geographic instrument, a human “Maginot Line” of some sort, where the demographic acts as a human shield that, on one hand, hinders Sunnis’ expansion, while simultaneously stopping the Shiites from consolidating on the other. Local groups like Druze, Kurds and Bedouin tribes are all supported directly or indirectly with Western and Israeli logistics and intelligence, and it will remain so, as long as their presence helps Israel fill the vacuum.
The situation in Syria is no longer up for debate—it is laid bare, with each chapter shedding light on the Greater Israel Plan, or the so-called Yinon Plan. This plan provides neither peace nor solutions, nor does it reflect any sense of humanity; instead, it ensures chaos for geopolitical and financial profit, leading to the downfall of a nation we once recognised as Syria. Lebanon is undoubtedly next on Israel’s fragmentation map, and it is with great concern that one must anticipate Israel’s next move…
Darrin Waller writes Fountainbridge Substack…
Understanding the Yinon Plan: Syria is Gone — Is Lebanon Next?
The fall of Syria marks the beginning of a new era of Levantine chaos.
As I wrote when Assad fell, Syria ceased to exist. Fourteen years of sectarian carnage — unleashed by a Salafist proxy terrorist militia, trained by the US, UK, Israel, and Turkey in camps across Jordan and Turkey, and funded by Persian Gulf petrodollar monarchies to the tune of three trillion dollars — extinguished the last secular Levantine nation in December 2024.
As Hassan Nasrallah warned:
“If Syria were to fall into the hands of these groups, its present and future would spiral into chaos… a scene of endless infighting among factions devoid of reason or culture, drowning in extremism, bloodshed, sectarian rivalries…”
It is done. Sold to us as a revolution. A popular uprising.
Another regime change operation — brutally executed over 14 years — culminated in the installation of a mercenary leader: the Saudi-born takfiri Jolani, now styling himself as President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
What we are seeing is the prosecution of the Yinon Plan — a 1982 geopolitical blueprint calling for Israeli regional dominance through the fragmentation of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt along ethnic, sectarian, and tribal lines.

IMAGE: Project Balkanisation: Oded Yinon and an Enduring Plank of Israeli Foreign Policy (Source: Katehon)
It argues that Israel’s long-term survival hinges on one core premise: “The dissolution of all existing Arab states into small units.”
On the surface, the geopolitical win by the US-UK-Israel military-intelligence trifecta — backed by Turkey and the Persian Gulf monarchies — appears seismic. A Shīʿī-led country now falls under Sunni Salafism, severing the contiguous Shīʿī-controlled corridor linking Tehran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Another barrier to China’s Silk Road ambitions into the Mediterranean has been firmly set in place. Any revival of the ancient Via Maris — a trade corridor that once ran the Levantine coast, linking Asia to Europe and North Africa — remains a pipe dream.
Severed by the establishment of Israel and now buried beneath the rubble of Syria’s destruction, it ensures that any vision of unity from the Maghreb to the Arabian Peninsula remains just that — a vision.
But perhaps of greater immediate import — Israel’s ethno-supremacists and their vision of a ‘Greater Israel’ have just taken a giant leap forward. Southern Syria — and crucially, Mount Hermon, which overlooks Damascus and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, granting strategic military dominance over both — is now firmly under Israeli control. As is the tri-border area between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq — Al Tanf.
Yet there’s more. Israel now moves to establish its self-styled ‘David’s Corridor’ — a contiguous land route stretching from the occupied Golan Heights through southern Syria to the Euphrates. It cuts through the governorates of Deraa, Suwayda, Al-Tanf, and Deir Ezzor, reaching the Iraqi-Syrian border at Albu Kamal — granting Israel a strategic foothold deep in the heart of West Asia.
The corridor was already partially activated during the 12-day war with Iran, enabling standoff air strikes deep into Iranian territory.
With a direct land route to Iraq now viable, expect covert destabilisation efforts within the Shīʿī heartlands of Karbalāʾ and Najaf, alongside renewed backing for Kurdish separatists in both Iraq and Syria. Further vicious sectarian conflict across the region is now being baked in.
Whilst Israel’s bombing of the Defence Ministry and the Presidential Palace in Damascus was supposedly to protect the Druze community from Jolani’s Salafist mercenaries, no such protection was afforded to the Alawites, Armenians, Assyrians, or any of Syria’s other religious or ethnic minorities, who were left to be slaughtered.
The strikes on the Defence Ministry and Presidential Palace were telegraphed well in advance — and were thus performative. A warning to Jolani — Southern Syria is now firmly under Israel’s purview. No Syrian military forces will be allowed.
Meaning: Jolani and his hired guns are expendable, especially now that they’ve completed their task — extinguishing Syria’s sovereignty. As Hadi Nasrallah ruefully put it:
“You mean to tell me the very ones armed by Israel, treated in Israeli hospitals, coordinating with the IOF, shaking Netanyahu’s hand and thanking him for bombing Lebanon — are now being bombed by Israel after serving their purpose? Who would’ve thought?”
And yet, it remains far from clear if Jolani has outlived his usefulness, or if he still has his uses, at least from a US perspective.
Only days ago, whilst Jolani was in Baku, Syrian and Israeli officials were reportedly in talks. Rumours even swirled of a deal wherein Syria would launch attacks against Lebanon’s Shiʿī communities — either independently or in coordination with Israel.
Little wonder, then, that US envoy Tom Barrack warned Lebanon to ‘disarm Hezbollah or risk Syrian occupation’ — signalling that Lebanon, too, is likely slated for division and balkanisation.
The port of Tripoli and the Bekaʿa Valley, Lebanon’s agricultural heartland and a Shīʿī stronghold, are now in play. The only question is whether Ankara or West Jerusalem will seize them first, come to blows over Lebanon’s spoils, or quietly divide them, with Turkey taking the port and Israel the Bekaʿa.
But full control may yet require the chaos of full-on civil war. Syria and Lebanon edge closer — division and balkanisation becoming ever easier to enforce, until little remains but manageable fragments. The Yinon Plan made manifest.
“The attack on Lebanon is going to happen without a doubt… the question is when, and the other question is how. Is Israel going to do a ground invasion at the same time or just attack from the air?” (Ibrahim Majed)
Doubtless, the architects of today’s chaos are already patting themselves on the back, expecting handsome dividends to roll in. More division. More balkanisation. A weaker, fractured Arab world — and a stronger, more dominant Israel.
This is what Netanyahu means when he talks about “redrawing the Middle East”.
Yet the US and Israel are unravelling at an accelerating pace. Their seeming victory over the Levant is no triumph of providence — it courts the abyss and beckons the judgment to come.

If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .