Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“Smart War” and State Terrorism

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025

On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations.

The message was posted to the president’s Truth Social account, shared on X/Twitter, and then picked up by all major mass media outlets, making it common knowledge to everyone on the planet that Trump was preparing to join Israel’s war on Iran.

On June 17, 2025, President Trump directly threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with assassination.

Sometimes crazy people issue vague threats which they have no power to follow through on. Such persons are best avoided and ignored. In order to be effective, death threats must be credible, otherwise there is no fear generated in the persons being addressed, for they recognize that they are dealing with no more and no less than a feckless buffoon. Whatever one may think of President Trump, his menacing social media posts are credible threats, given his official role as commander-in-chief with the power to unleash formidable military might on the people of the world. In case anyone did not already know this, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded the press corps on June 20, 2025, that “Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.”

Trump’s warning to the entire population of Tehran that they should all evacuate the city was a fortiori a credible threat, given the U.S. government’s wide-ranging “War on Terror,” during which both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and occupied. Several other countries were subjected to thousands of missile strikes “outside areas of active hostilities,” that is, where there were no U.S. troops present and thus no force-protection pretext for the use of state-inflicted homicide.

Verbal threats of the use of deadly force by a president often culminate in military action because the commander may be easily persuaded by his advisors to believe that he (and the nation) will lose credibility if he fails to follow through on his words, which, he is told, would be a sign of weakness. Predictably enough, then, on June 22, 2025, President Trump delivered on his threat to bomb Iran, although he claimed to have struck only three specific sites: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. It was at these sites where nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear arms were allegedly underway. The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported to members of congress in March 2025: “The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

On June 17, 2025, when a journalist reminded Trump of Director Gabbard’s assessment, the president bluntly blurted out, “I don’t care what she said.” It has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily informed not by his own cabinet but by the intelligence services of Israel, above all, Mossad.

For anyone unfamiliar with the modus operandi and general demeanor of Mossad, I recommend the films Munich (2005), The Gatekeepers (2012), and The Operative (2020).

That Trump has been decisively influenced by the government of Israel was further evidenced by his direct threat against Supreme Leader Khamenei and the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades.

On June 20, 2025, two days before Trump’s missile strikes on Iran, Director Gabbard did an about-face, insisting that her earlier testimony before congress had been misrepresented and ignored her finding that Iran had been enriching uranium:

Gabbard’s retraction, or creative reinterpretation, of her former testimony bears similarities to the case of Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, who initially opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then for reasons which remain unclear suddenly became one of the mission’s most ardent supporters. In Powell’s case, he went even so far as to present the case for war to a less-than-enthusiastic United Nations Security Council. After a colorful Powerpoint presentation featuring an array of ersatz evidence—ranging from speculation about Iraq’s aluminum test tubes, to a receipt for “yellow cake” purchase, to photos of what were claimed to be mobile chemical labs—Powell recognized that he did not have the votes needed to secure U.N. approval and so abruptly withdrew the war resolution. The United States then proceeded to invade Iraq unimpeded, claiming, among other things, that the 2003 military intervention was legal because of previous U.N. resolutions violated by President Saddam Hussein. In other words, after having sought U.N. approval, the U.S. government suddenly denied that it needed such approval before invading Iraq anyway.

Unlike George W. Bush, when Donald Trump bombed Iran “at a time of his choosing,” as they say, he did not have the support of the U.S. congress. Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump all depended on the Bush-era AUMFs as they continued to lob missiles on several countries beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, et al. But the carte blanche AUMFs granted to Bush in 2001 and 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neocons naturally devise all manner of interpretive epicyclic curlicues to arrive at the conclusion that Iran is in fact “fair game” for bombing. As stated and ratified, however, the AUMFs granted by congress to George W. Bush were intended to facilitate the U.S. president’s quest to bring justice to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 crimes.

Lest anyone forget, President Trump was not unique among twenty-first century presidents in bombing countries whose residents had nothing to do with the shocking demolition of the World Trade Center. President Obama effected a regime change in Libya without securing the support of congress because, he claimed, it was not really a war, since he was not deploying any ground troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to persuade Obama that “Gaddafi must go!” She later characterized the Libya intervention as a shining example of “smart power at its best,” even though a few U.S. State Department officials, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steele, were killed in the post-bombing mêlée. Today, Libya is essentially a failed state. Obama himself has confessed that the biggest regret and worst mistake of his presidency (reported in The Guardian) was not having a plan for the aftermath of his supposedly “humanitarian” intervention, which he enlisted NATO to carry out.

In the immediate aftermath of the June 22, 2025 missile strikes, Trump officials followed the Obama administration’s Libya playbook in insisting that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not the beginning of a long, protracted engagement in Iran. This was meant to draw contrast with the unpopular multi-decade wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ignoring Trump’s threat to the residents of Tehran, Vice President J.D. Vance and others recited the Obama administration refrain that the mission was “not a war” with Iran. As Vance explained, the limited missile strikes were carried out only in order to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the government of Iran, a total of 610 people were killed and thousands more injured by the bombs of the U.S. and Israeli governments. However, none of the persons who perished were Americans.

Availing himself of the Obama-era “smart war” trope, Vice President Vance also observed that Trump’s preemptive military strikes differed from those of his predecessors because, unlike Trump, the previous presidents were “dumb”. Oliver Stone produced a film, W (2008), which persuasively portrays Bush as a half-wit, but no one ever suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney or the cadre of other war profiteers and neocons who coaxed Bush into preemptively attacking Iraq were stupid.

In any case, by now, the U.S. government has directly massacred so many thousands of people (and millions indirectly) in so many different countries, often located outside areas of active hostility (war zones or lands under occupation), that the citizenry has become largely inured to it all. Tragically, over the course of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an apparently permanent paradigm shift to the profligate state use of homicide to terrorize and kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous or even suspicious by U.S. officials or their contracted analysts. This radical paradigm shift was made possible by a new technology: the weaponized drone, which began to be used by the Bush administration first under a pretext of force protection in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush team effectively initiated the Drone Age by firing a missile on a group of terrorist suspects driving down a road in Yemen on November 3, 2002.

As the Global War on Terror stretched on and angry jihadists began to proliferate and spread throughout the region, President Obama assumed the drone warrior mantel with alacrity, opting to kill rather than capture thousands of suspected terrorists outside areas of active hostilities. In his enthusiasm for drone killing, Obama went even so far as to intentionally and premeditatedly hunt down and kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (located in Yemen at the time, in 2011), without indicting him, much less allowing him to stand trial, for his alleged crimes.

Following the Obama precedent, in 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron opted to execute British nationals Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan, who were suspected of complicity in terrorism, after they had fled from the U.K. to Syria, and despite the fact that the parliament had rejected Cameron’s call for war on Syria. Cameron’s missile strikes against British citizens located abroad was all the more surprising because capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. as well as the European Union, of which Britain was a member at that time.

One state-perpetrated assassination leads to another, and on January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing via drone strike of a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, who was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission at the time. Trump openly proclaimed, and indeed bragged, that the homicide, which he authorized, was intentional and premeditated. According to the president, Soleimani was responsible for past and future attacks against both Israel and the United States. The summary execution of a specific, named individual would have been considered an illegal act of assassination in centuries past but today is accepted by many as an “act of war” for the sophomoric reason that it is carried out by a military strike rather than undercover spies armed with poisons or garrottes.

In view of Trump’s unabashed, vaunted, assassination of Soleimani, and his full-throated support of Netanyahu, the threat to liquidate Supreme Leader Khamenei was just as credible as the “evacuation order” to the entire population of Tehran. Leaders today exult over their use of cutting-edge technology to eliminate specific, named individuals, as though summarily executing the victims were obviously permissible, given that targeted killing is now regarded by governments the world over as one of the military’s standard operating procedures. Such unlawful actions were fully normalized as a tool of “smart war” during the eight-year Obama presidency.

Shortly after Trump officials went out on the media circuit to insist that the bombing of Iran’s alleged nuclear production facilities was not the initiation of a U.S.-Iran war, Trump took to social media again, this time to suggest that his administration’s ultimate goal might really be regime change:

Less than one day later, the new official narrative became that Trump had masterfully brought the “twelve-day war” to a miraculous close, thanks to his superlative deal-making capabilities.

All of this would be risible, if not for the fact that many millions of persons in Iran continue to live under a persistent threat of death, given the wildly unpredictable comportment of President Trump, seemingly exacerbated by his longstanding commitment to stand by Israel, regardless of how outrageously Netanyahu behaves. The more and more daring acts of assassination perpetrated by the government of Israel clearly illustrate where state-perpetrated homicide and its attendant terrorist effects under a specious guise of “smart war” eventually lead.

Targeting named terrorist suspects allegedly responsible for previous crimes swiftly expanded to include signature strikes against groups of unarmed persons designated potentially dangerous and located anywhere in the world—in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else they please. The Israeli government has even deployed exploding cellphones and car bombs, the latter of which was once a tactic primarily deployed by dissident anti-government groups and crime syndicates. The repeated use by the Israeli government of car bombs to kill research scientists illuminates the slippery slope from missile strikes outside areas of active hostilities to what are empirically indistinguishable from Mafia hits. Car bombs have long been used by the Mafia and other nongovernmental organized crime groups, but the Israeli government openly perpetrates the very same acts under cover of “national self defense”.

Washington’s normalization of assassinations has emboldened leaders such as Netanyahu, who today conducts himself according to the principle “everything is permitted” in the name of the sacrosanct State. Witness what has been going on in Gaza since October 7, 2023: terrorism, torture, starvation, and summary execution. All of this is being condoned by every leader in the world who continues to voice support for, or even aids and abets, Netanyahu’s mass slaughter. This support for mass slaughter is provided ostensibly under the assumption that the perpetrators are doing no more and no less than defending the State of Israel.

Following the examples of U.S. Presidents Trump and Obama, and UK Prime Minister Cameron, all of whom publicly vaunted their assassination prowess, Prime Minister Netanyahu, having apparently recognized that the implement of homicide is in fact morally irrelevant, openly and brazenly executes persons determined by Mossad to be dangerous, with no concern for the thousands of innocent persons’ lives ruined along the way. In Operation Red Wedding, the Israeli government claimed to have dispatched, in a matter of minutes, thirty senior officials associated with the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) including military chiefs and top commanders located throughout Iran at the opening of the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War.” The operation was praised by the pro-Israel media as featuring “bespoke” acts of targeted killing made possible by “pattern of life” intelligence.

Drone assassination, successfully marketed by the Obama team as “smart war,” smoothed the way to the uncritical acceptance by many citizens of the reprobate expansion of state killing to include acts historically committed by members of nongovernmental organized crime. Looking back, the rebranding by U.S. officials of political assassination as an act of war, provided only that the implement of death is a missile, was a slick and largely successful way of persuading U.S. citizens to believe that extrajudicial, state-inflicted homicide abroad is an acceptable means to conflict resolution. Even though it bypasses all of the republican procedures forged over millennia, including judicial means, for reconciling the rival claims of adversaries.

In the maelstrom of the twenty-first-century wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, assassination was labeled targeted killing and successfully sold to politicians as “smart war,” a surgically precise way to defeat the enemy without sacrificing combatant troops. Whichever label is used, assassination or targeted killing, acts of summary execution by governments involve the intentional, premeditated elimination of persons suspected to be possibly dangerous, a criterion so vague as to permit the targeting of virtually any able-bodied person who happens to be located in a place where terrorists are thought to reside.

There are three differences between “targeted killing” carried out by drone warriors and assassination. First, the weapon being used is a missile. Second, drone operators wear uniforms, while undercover assassins and hitmen do not. Third, far from being “surgically precise,” drone warfare increases the slaughter of innocent bystanders in their own civil societies, which is facilely dismissed as the “collateral damage” of war. In this way, the advent of lethal drones and their use outside areas of active hostility has served to terrorize entire populations forced to endure the hovering above their heads of machines which may—or may not—emit missiles at any given time on any given day.

Credible death threats to heads of state and evacuation orders issued to millions of people not only terrorize the persons being addressed, but also undermine the security of the citizens of the United States. The populace will bear the brunt of the blowback caused by such reckless behavior on the part of officials who operate with effective impunity and are ignorant of or oblivious to the nation’s republican origins. By launching preemptive missile strikes, the Pentagon does not protect but sabotages the interests and well-being of not only U.S. citizens but also the citizens of the world.

Nonetheless, many U.S. politicians and members of the populace, along with heads of state such as Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, et al., having been thoroughly seduced by the “smart war” marketing line, appear to have no problem whatsoever with the tyrannical and arguably deranged death threats of the U.S. president. They have become altogether habituated to the assassination of persons now regarded as a standard operating procedure of war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively condoned Trump’s behavior by issuing this statement in the aftermath of the June 22, 2025 U.S. missile strikes against Iran: “Iran must never acquire the bomb.”

If terrorism is the arbitrary killing of or threat of death against innocent persons, then there can be no further doubt that the largest state sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism in the twenty-first century is in fact the U.S. government. President Trump inherited from President Obama and his mentor, drone-killing czar John Brennan (appointed by Obama as CIA director in 2013), the capacity to terrorize entire civilian populations and execute individuals at his caprice. No less than every drone strike launched in the vicinity of civilian populations beyond war zones, Trump’s completely unhinged threat to a group of people with nowhere to seek refuge, and no way of knowing whether the U.S. president is issuing a serious warning or simply bluffing, attempting some sort of perverse ploy to bring Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei back to the negotiation table (where he was, before Israel began bombing Iran), was an act of terrorism.

It is not “smart” to terrorize millions of human beings in the name of preventing terrorism. It is a contradiction, pure and simple.

Laurie Calhoun is a Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times,We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique. In 2015, she began traveling around the world while writing. In 2020, she returned to the United States, where she remained until 2023 as a result of the COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by governments nearly everywhere.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan won’t remain silent if US, Israel target Ayatollah Khamenei: Senator

Press TV – June 30, 2025

A Pakistani senator has condemned a threat by the US and Israel to target Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, saying it will trigger a response from all Muslim nations, including Pakistan.

Allama Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a member of the Pakistani Senate, described Ayatollah Khamenei as a religious leader and a Marja (religious authority), who is also a political leader.

Religious authorities issued a fatwa (religious decree) that says anyone who threatens the Leader is an enemy of God, whose punishment is death in Islam, he noted.

Between June 13 and 24, Israel waged a blatant and unprovoked aggression against Iran, assassinating many high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.

On June 22, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

During the 12-day war, US President Donald Trump claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was “an easy target.”

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also ranted that the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei would “end” the war.

The Pakistani senator said Trump and Netanyahu should know that if an attack is carried out, it will not just be an attack on Iran, and all Muslims in the world will respond to it.

“We will respond in Pakistan as well; if such an action is taken, no American will remain in Pakistan. We will not remain silent when they (Trump and Netanyahu) do not abide by any law,” he added.

On Sunday, senior Iranian clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani issued religious decrees against any attack or threat to Ayatollah Khamenei.

They said that any person or regime that threatens or attacks the leadership and religious authority to harm the Islamic Ummah and its sovereignty is subject to the ruling of confrontation.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Agent of Chaos: Lindsey Graham’s Power Depends on War

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 30.06.2025

Hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham got President Donald Trump to strike Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal. What’s he gaining from the Middle East war?

Darling of Jewish Lobby

  • The Republican Jewish Coalition was Graham’s top donor in his 2020 re-election, giving $111,000 (OpenSecrets).
  • Over $1 million more came via RJC, according to RJC’s executive director Matt Brooks.
  • Brooks: “There is nobody more important in the US Senate” for the US-Israel partnership.
  • He raised $109 million in total.

RJC: Longtime Supporter of Graham

  • RJC leaders Larry Mizel and Sam Fox backed Graham’s 2014 re-election.
  • Fox gave $50,000 and Mizel $100,000 to his super PAC, West Main Street Values.
  • RJC board member Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a fundraiser for Graham’s 2016 presidential bid.

AIPAC is Another Backer

  • Graham major backer, billionaire Mizel, also sits on AIPAC’s board — the top pro-Israel lobby in the US.
  • Haaretz calls Mizel a key booster of pro-Israel Republicans who opens doors in Israel’s power circles for GOP politicians.

More Wars – More Defense Contractors Backing

  • Lockheed Martin gave Graham $102,000 in 2020, according to OpenSecrets
  • Boeing added $80,700 in 2024.
  • The Intercept notes most cash comes from defense-linked individual donors — like Humvee mogul Ron Perelman, who gave $500,000 to Graham’s 2016 run.

Graham’s 2026 Senate Bid at Stake

  • Graham’s hawkish Iran stance apparently ties to his 2026 ambitions – he needs big donor cash.
  • RJC backs him as “one of the strongest advocates for the US Jewish community.”
  • Defense firms will pay too—if he keeps the bombs dropping.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Can international institutions be reformed?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025

It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.

But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.

However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.

That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.

But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.

It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.

This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.

Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.

Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.

All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.

In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.

Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.

The list could go on.

The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?

Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex

By Ron Paul | June 30, 2025

The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.

However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.

Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.

One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.

Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.

Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.

Increasing spending on militarism while cutting spending on programs that help low-income Americans is bad politics and bad policy. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, do not support overseas intervention.

The growing opposition to our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is easy to understand. The US has engaged in numerous military actions in many countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since the beginning of the 21st century. The American people pay for this militarism in several ways. One is the “inflation tax” imposed by the Federal Reserve in order to monetize the debt incurred by the US government for endless wars. President Trump has turned his back on his antiwar supporters by bombing Iran and by increasing military spending to over a trillion dollars.

The Republican insistence on increasing military spending is the main reason Congress cannot cut taxes without increasing the debt, making cuts in domestic welfare programs, or both. If the Republicans want to be the Make America Great Again party, they need to embrace a true America First foreign policy. This means no more regime change wars or US taxpayer supported “color revolutions.” Instead, America should return to the Founders’ vision of a country that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” and instead is “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

A return to a noninterventionist foreign policy is the only way we will be able to begin to pay down the national debt and restore a government that adheres to the constitutional limits on its powers and respects all the people’s rights all the time.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Iran asks UN Security Council to recognize Israel, US as ‘initiators’ of aggression

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – June 29, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has called on the United Nations Security Council to recognize the Israeli regime and the United States as the “initiators” of the recent 12-day aggression against the Islamic Republic.

“We solemnly request that the Security Council recognize the Israeli regime and the United States as the initiators of the act of aggression and their subsequent responsibility, therefore including compensation and reparation,” Araghchi said in a letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Sunday.

“The Security Council should also hold the aggressors accountable and prevent the recurrence of such heinous and serious crimes to enable it to maintain international peace and security,” he added.

He emphasized that political and military leaders, who order an act of aggression, “are also individually liable for the international crime of aggression under customary international law.”

The top Iranian diplomat described the act of aggression as a “brazen assault” on the very foundations of international law, warning that tolerating it and its legal consequences seriously undermines the credibility of the United Nations system.

It also “poses a real threat to the rule of law at the international level and engenders lawlessness in the future of international relations in our region as well as the international community at large,” Araghchi pointed out.

In the early hours of June 13, the Israeli regime launched an all-out aggression on Iranian soil by targeting various military and nuclear sites, claiming the lives of dozens of top military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as ordinary civilians.

On June 22, the United States joined the Israeli regime in the assault and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

A day later, Iran launched a wave of missiles at al-Udeid air base in Qatar—the largest American military base in West Asia—in retaliation for the aggression.

As the Iranian armed forces pounded Israel and its military and industrial infrastructure, using many new-generation missiles that precisely hit the designated targets, the embattled regime was forced to unilaterally declare a truce deal on June 24.

In a letter to the United Nations secretary general and president of the Security Council on June 13, Araghchi said the Israeli regime’s act of aggression against the country amounts to a “declaration of war.”

“These oppressive acts are not only constitute a severe violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran as an independent member of the United Nations, but as per international law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, are among acts of aggression and war crimes,” he said back then.

June 29, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prof. Ted Postol on Why No Bomb on Earth Can Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program!

Dialogue Works | June 28, 2025

June 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

‘Every American Wearing a Wearable’ Is Not a Vision We Share

By Children’s Health Defense EMR & Wireless Team | The Defender | June 26, 2025

During recent congressional testimony, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated:

“We’re about to launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables … my vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”

Kennedy was responding to a question about whether consumers should continue to have access to wearables. He explained that wearables allow users to constantly track in real-time how food and lifestyle choices affect their health metrics. He also claimed that wearables are key to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda.

We agree that people should be able to monitor their health in innovative ways using the technology they choose. But we do not think the federal government should try to push wearables on every American.

A wearable is an electronic device — such as a smartwatch, fitness tracker or smart ring — worn on the body. It’s made up of dozens of sensors and wireless technologies that continuously collect, monitor and transmit biometric and other sensitive data.

“We do not share this vision,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program. “Quite the contrary, we oppose governmental pressure to incentivize the widespread use of wearables. They pose serious health risks, especially to children, and they threaten privacy.”

Wireless technologies, including wearables, have clear and well-documented harms. These devices continuously emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation in direct contact with the body for long periods of time.

They also have multiple transmitters/receivers (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular), operating on several different radio bands. Cumulative and long-term exposures have known significant risks.

RF radiation exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including “increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.”

A systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) last month concluded that there is “high certainty” evidence that cellphone radiation exposure causes two types of cancer in animals. 

Higher-frequency millimeter wave (MMW) transmissions used in 5G cellular networks are also known to produce eye damage and skin burns. An industry study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) concluded that overexposure to MMW is expected to produce burns “like those produced when a person touches hot objects or flames.”

Children, pregnant women at even greater risk

Children have smaller bodies, developing nervous systems, more conductive tissue and longer lifetimes of exposure compared to adults, putting them at even greater risk of harm from radiation exposure. Their cells are dividing and growing at a higher rate, so DNA damage is magnified.

Other vulnerable populations include pregnant women, and people with implanted devices, chronic health conditions and Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMR-S).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued official guidance cautioning that individuals with pacemakers and other implanted medical devices should keep wearables like smartwatches at a distance due to potential interference and malfunction. Manufacturers like Apple also include guidelines and warnings for wearables.

This highlights a broader point: wearables are not safe or suitable for “every American.”

In 2021, CHD won a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the FCC had failed to consider extensive evidence of harm from wireless radiation.

The court found that the FCC did not consider peer-reviewed scientific research on the harmful effects of wireless radiation exposure on children, the brain and nervous system, male fertility and people with EMR-S.

The ruling specifically cited the agency’s failure to address studies showing oxidative stress, DNA damage, and the health risks from modulation and cumulative exposure.

The court also ordered the agency to explain how its limits are protective. Yet almost four years later, the FCC has still not complied.

This ruling validated years of scientific evidence about the harms of wireless technology and confirmed that the public, including wearable users, continues to be actively misguided by industry and government agencies alike.

Biometric data collection raises privacy concerns

Wireless technologies also have extensive and well-documented privacy impacts. They continuously collect biometric data, including heart rate, quality of sleep, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, oxygen levels, calorie burn, sweat gland emissions, hormone levels, body temperature, emotional responses, movement and precise geolocation.

This biometric data is transmitted over the internet and can be used to create an intimate profile of the user’s physical and psychological states. This intimate profile can be made available to employers, medical providers, private corporations, artificial intelligence systems, insurance companies and government entities.

This surveillance infrastructure may lay the groundwork for psychological targeting, predictive modeling, social control and unprecedented intrusions into personal freedom.

These risks cannot be left out of any discussion of so-called “digital health.”

“We are eager to learn more about Secretary Kennedy’s full intent regarding wearables,” said Eckenfels. “The growing push for widespread adoption of wearables, which exposes users to constant RF radiation in direct contact with the body, is concerning and fundamentally at odds with the values of informed consent, privacy and bodily autonomy that CHD defends.”

Eckenfels added:

“The public deserves radical transparency about wearables’ health and privacy risks. Their use must remain a personal choice and not a public health objective. We do not share — indeed, we oppose — a vision where everyone is subject to constant wireless exposure in direct contact with the body and biometric tracking.

“What amounts to technocratic surveillance should not be normalized, encouraged and promoted at the federal level.”

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.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Vance Unwittingly Reminds Us of the Jose Padilla Case

By Jacob G. Hornberger – FFF – June 27, 2025

In mocking California Senator Alex Padilla by referring to him as “Jose,” Vice President Vance has unwittingly reminded us of the Jose Padilla case. The Padilla case showed us how government officials use “crises” to destroy the civil liberties of the people.

The 9/11 attacks motivated U.S. officials to declare a “war on terrorism,” which turned out to be a bigger racket than their Cold War racket had been. Not only did the attacks fortify and reinforce the national-security state governmental structure that had come into existence to ostensibly protect us from the Reds, they also firmly established that the national-security establishment was not bound by the Bill of Rights.

Soon after the attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA set up a terrorist prison camp and torture center at their imperial base located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Why Cuba? Because the Pentagon and the CIA were hoping that they would have full and complete control over the base — that is, that they would not be restrained by constitutional niceties and not be interfered with by the U.S Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, it was an interesting mindset given the oath that national-security state officials take to support and defend the Constitution.

Things didn’t work out as planned, however, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it had judicial jurisdiction over Gitmo. That motivated the Pentagon and the CIA to establish a separate and independent judicial system at Gitmo for prosecuting accused terrorists, one that was totally different from the federal judicial system that had been established under the Constitution.

For example, while the federal judicial system guaranteed the right of trial by jury, the Pentagon-CIA judicial system employed kangaroo military tribunals. Moreover, under the federal judicial system, officials were prohibited from torturing people into confessing to crimes. At Gitmo, torture became a regular feature of life at Gitmo.

How would it be decided which system would be used with respect to each accused terrorist? U.S. officials had the discretionary power to decide which system would be used. The difference would be night and day. For example, in the constitutional system, an accused had the right to a speedy trial. In the Gitmo system, there are accused terrorists who are still waiting for a trial after some 20 years.

Given the widespread fear among the populace of “the terrorists,” many Americans were fine with this new dual judicial system, notwithstanding the fact that it was not authorized by the Constitution. What mattered to them was that the Pentagon and the CIA were supposedly keeping them safe from “the terrorists,” just as they had supposedly kept them safe from the Reds.

Equally important, people were convinced that the Gitmo system was going to be limited to foreigners. Therefore, the violation of the civil liberties that our American ancestors had enshrined in the Bill of Rights was considered no big deal. Never mind that our ancestors intended that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone, including foreigners.

But the notion that the destruction of civil liberties would be limited to foreigners was always misguided. After all, a terrorist is a terrorist. Why would an American terrorist be any different from a foreign terrorist? And don’t forget: This was not only a foreign war on terrorism but rather a global war on terrorism.

Then along came Jose Padilla and things became clear. Padilla was initially charged with terrorism in U.S. District Court. That was the standard procedure. After all, terrorism is a federal criminal offense. That’s why there are criminal prosecutions for terrorism in federal district court.

But don’t forget: The Pentagon and the CIA now had their own judicial system for trying terrorism cases — the system they established in Cuba. U.S officials could now choose which judicial system to employ against terrorist suspects — the federal system or the Gitmo system.

Before too long, the Pentagon and the CIA yanked Padilla out of the federal system and placed him into military custody, where they proceeded to brutally torture him. They never actually sent him to Guantanamo but they could have.

Padilla was an American citizen. Deferring to the Pentagon and the CIA, the federal courts upheld his transfer out of the federal-court system and into the clutches of the Pentagon and the CIA.

Given the right “national emergency” in the future, there is no doubt that U.S. officials will employ that judicial ruling against every American who they label a “terrorist.”

Kudos to Vice President Vance for unwittingly reminding us of how federal officials used the “national emergency” of the  9/11 attacks to destroy the civil liberties of the American people.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Leave a comment

Zarif accuses IAEA’s Grossi of aiding war crimes, calls for removal

Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025

Former Iranian Foreign Minister and ex-Vice President for Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, issued a scathing condemnation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary-General Rafael Grossi on Friday, accusing him of facilitating war crimes through politically charged actions and rhetoric.

In a statement posted on his official X account, Zarif said Grossi had “abetted the slaughter of innocents” by issuing what he described as a fictitious IAEA report, and warned that the director-general is now laying the groundwork for further crimes against Iran.

Grossi accused of promoting false narratives

Zarif sharply criticized Grossi’s recent suggestion that Iran might be concealing uranium at World Heritage Sites in Isfahan, calling the claim “reckless musing” and part of a broader campaign to provoke further military escalation. “@rafaelmgrossi is now conspiring to abet more war crimes,” Zarif wrote.

The former top diplomat added that the IAEA should remove Grossi from his post, calling him a “disgrace” to the agency and launching the hashtag “#Fire_Grossi” to amplify the demand.

Mounting criticism over IAEA’s politicization 

The remarks add to a growing number of Iranians accusing the IAEA of losing its impartiality and enabling acts of aggression by the Israeli occupation and the United States.

This also comes after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Friday that the Iranian Parliament had voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure can be guaranteed.

The decision follows days of mounting tension over the US and the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran says were politically facilitated by the IAEA’s leadership. Araghchi directly blamed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi for contributing to what he called “a sordid state of affairs.”

In a statement published on X, Araghchi accused Grossi of playing a “regrettable role in obfuscating” the fact that the IAEA had closed all past issues with Iran’s nuclear program a decade ago. Instead of upholding that record, Grossi, according to Araghchi, enabled the IAEA Board of Governors to adopt a “politically-motivated resolution” against Iran.

That resolution, Araghchi said, directly set the stage for recent bombings of Iranian nuclear sites by the US and the Israeli occupation.

Iran to defend its sovereignty 

Araghchi condemned Grossi’s silence in the face of these attacks, calling it a “betrayal” of his statutory responsibilities. “In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi said.

He further criticized Grossi’s insistence on visiting bombed sites under the pretext of inspections, calling such efforts “meaningless” and “possibly even malign in intent.”

Iran, Araghchi emphasized, reserves the right to take any measures necessary to defend its sovereignty, people, and national interests. He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA would not resume until credible guarantees are in place to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from further attacks.

“The IAEA and its Director-General bear full responsibility for what has transpired,” Araghchi stated, underscoring Iran’s growing distrust of the agency’s impartiality amid a broader climate of Western pressure and aggression.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

The United States Cannot Defeat Iran

By William Schryver – imetatronink – June 27, 2025

How soon people have forgotten that, earlier this year, the US dispatched two carrier strike groups and a half-dozen B-2s (and other USAF assets) to disarm the Yemeni and open the selectively blockaded Red Sea.

They failed. Abysmally. For the second time!

First of all, in 2024, the USS Brave Sir Robin (CVN-69), USS Teddy Bear (CVN-71), and USS Fraidy Abe (CVN-72) gave it a try, only to eventually run away with their tail between their legs. The Brave Sir Robin left behind an F/A-18 at the bottom of the sea.

They were followed up by the USS Trembling Puppy (CVN-75) and the USS Timid Vinny (CVN-70). But they fared no better, with the Trembling Puppy losing two additional F/A-18 fighters over the course of its traumatic tour of the northern Red Sea.

And, not only did the Yemeni increase their score of MQ-9 Reaper drones to 23, they also targeted and credibly threatened both F-35s and B-2s, such that both platforms were summarily withdrawn from the fight for fear of one getting shot down.

Remember, Yemen is absolutely the bottom rung on the escalatory ladder of formidable adversaries.

Anyone who seriously believes the US Navy can operate in Iranian waters is just plain delusional.

Even if no ships got damaged or sunk, they’d still run out of munitions in a couple weeks or less — and they sure as hell won’t be able to reload in Bahrain.

As for an air campaign … well, I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that US/Israeli aircraft penetrated Iranian airspace to any appreciable extent in Act I of this war. Consequently, I am dubious that Iranian medium- and long-range air defenses were even used.

There is also zero credible evidence of top-shelf Iranian air defenses being destroyed.

From all indications, the Iranians were shooting down Israel’s big strike drones with short-range AD. And they shot down several.

The Israeli long-range air-launched ballistic missiles were apparently effective, but they simply don’t have very many of them, and as the war progressed into its second week, we saw fewer and fewer of them with each passing day.

In any case, when Act II of this war gets started (and it won’t be long), it will almost certainly entail penetration of Iranian airspace. And we will see not only the emergence of Iranian long-range AD, but I strongly suspect Russian and/or Chinese mobile air defense systems will suddenly appear on the battlefield.

Those whose calculus of a US/Iran war assumes overwhelming American air superiority will abruptly find the parameters of their equations altered.

The Russians and Chinese are not going to stand idly by and watch the US smash up their important southwest Asia ally in the rapidly emerging multipolar world.

And keep in mind: the US simply cannot logistically sustain a high-intensity air campaign for more than 2-3 weeks. And if even a dozen or so manned US aircraft are shot down, and a couple ships severely damaged … well, that will cause such overwhelming consternation in Washington that it might even result in a coup d’état, or something closely approximating one.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Makers Signal Fear Over Removal of Neurotoxic Injected Aluminum Ingredient

By Jefferey Jaxen | June 27, 2025

Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb made his ceremonial appearance on CNBC to titrate the public well with Big Pharma talking points in the wake of this week’s ACIP meeting.

After speaking for less than one minute and forty seconds, Gottlieb used the tired, inaccurate slur ‘anti-vaxxer’ four times in a failed attempt to frame an us verse them narrative like it was 2015 again.

With the newly appointed ACIP committee vote to remove the mercury-based preservative thimerosal from the few remaining flu shots, Gottlieb wasted no time circling the wagons to protect the widespread, problematic aluminum adjuvant in several vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule.

His concern was that would be ACIP’s next target. And he’s probably right.

“This is a very safe ingredient” stated Gottlieb regarding the regular injection of aluminum nanoparticles into infants, children and adolescents at scale.

Zero pushback or questions from the interviewer to challenge him per usual.

How settled is the safety science of injecting aluminum in children?

The Informed Consent Action Network sent a legal letter to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2019 demanding any human or animal studies relied upon by these agencies to establish the safety of injected aluminum.

The agencies produced no documents nor could they located a single study showing the safety of aluminum in childhood vaccines.

Meanwhile, a 2021 study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology found that six childhood vaccines contain a statistically significant greater quantity of aluminum adjuvant than is provided for on these products’ labeling. This study promped ICAN to demand the FDA assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information regarding the amount of aluminum adjuvant in their childhood vaccines. The agency has since stonewalled the request.

Here’s the embarrassing, anti-scientific part Gottlieb forgets to mention.

The rationale for injecting aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles into newborns was allowed and justified by a single 2011 study, by a single FDA scientist named Dr. Robert Mitkus.

Author J.B. Handley in his book How to End the Autism Epidemic writes the following about Mitkus’ study:

What would be lost on the average layperson is that the only biological science Dr. Mitkus considered in making his safety assessment was a single study that infused (rather than injected) aluminum citrate (rather than aluminum hydroxide) into adults (rather than babies). It’s hard to put this seemingly minor detail in proper context. In no other drug on the planet (except for vaccines) would safety standards ever be determined without using the actual product (aluminum hydroxide) administered in the proper way (intramuscular injection), into the proper patient population (infants).

World-renowned researchers called out this fact in their 2018 study by stating:

“To date, aluminum adjuvants per se have, perhaps surprisingly, not been the subject of any official experimental investigation, and this being in spite of the well-established neurotoxicity of aluminum.”

Will aluminum adjuvants be ACIP’s next target? Are studies being commissioned by Jay Bhattacharya’s NIH to look at these ingredients and their well-established role in creating chronic disease in American Children? All open questions at the time of this writing.

As for Scott and his industry pals, shots across the bow appear to be signaling that it’s no longer business as usual.

Gottlieb left his position as FDA commissioner only to accept a position on the board of Pfizer in less than three months.

Gottlieb is Big Pharma’s jack-in-the-box who seems to pop up and make noise at key moments when public pressure is applied which threatens bottom line profit margins of their liability-free injectable product lines.

His corporate media residency at CNBC allows for rapid response industry talkings points to roll from his mouth at a moment’s notice whenever his handlers decide to make him dance.

Prior to the pandemic, as questions swirled about a connection between vaccines and autism, Gottleib was there. When asked by the CNBC reporter why parents claim that their children developed autism or “something on the spectrum” right around the time they received their shots, Gottlieb blamed coincidence by saying:

“Children who are gonna display symptoms of autism and other developmental disorders, those start to manifest and become self-evident right around the time kids are getting vaccinated.”

Magic. Like Fauci, Gottleib is his own version of The Science™. What he says is ordained, never questioned during interviews. A continuous appeal to authority. Why? Because Pfizer man said so.

With a little luck, revolving door riders like Gottlieb will be artifacts of a shameful past era. Where U.S. regulatory agencies continually launched their leaders into the waiting arms of the industries they regulated.

June 27, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »