Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Miami Beach Resident Questioned by Police After Facebook Post Criticizing Mayor Steven Meiner

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2026

A confrontation over a Facebook comment has drawn attention after two Miami Beach police detectives appeared at a resident’s home to question her about remarks critical of Mayor Steven Meiner.

Raquel Pacheco, who once ran for the Florida Senate as a Democrat and has been openly critical of Meiner, posted a comment on one of his social media updates alleging that the mayor “consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way…”

Shortly afterward, officers arrived at her residence. In a video she recorded, one detective cautioned her that such a statement “could potentially incite somebody to do something radical.”

Police later clarified that the exchange was not tied to any criminal probe, but the encounter has raised concerns about policing free expression.

In a letter addressed to Police Chief Wayne Jones, FIRE described the officers’ actions as “an egregious abuse of power” that “chills the exercise of First Amendment rights and undermines public confidence in the department’s commitment to respecting civil liberties and the United States Constitution.”

Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s director of public advocacy, accused the department of using its authority to discourage lawful speech.

“The purpose of their visit was not to investigate a crime. It had no purpose other than to pressure Pacheco to cease engaging in protected political expression over concern about how others might react to it,” Terr wrote. “This blatant overreach is offensive to the First Amendment.”

FIRE’s letter urged the department to acknowledge publicly that Pacheco’s post is constitutionally protected and to ensure that “officers will never initiate contact with individuals for the purpose of discouraging lawful expression.”

The organization also asked for copies of departmental rules and training materials dealing with police responses to protected expression, adding that the resident’s statement does not fit the legal definition of a “true threat.”

Chief Jones, in a written response, maintained that the detectives acted appropriately and on his directive alone. “At no time did the Mayor or any other official direct me to take action,” he said, adding that his department “is committed to safeguarding residents and visitors while also respecting constitutional rights.”

A police spokesperson confirmed that Meiner’s office had flagged the Facebook comment for review but declined to provide further details.

Requests for additional records, including internal communications between the mayor’s office and the police, remain pending.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Gaza’s ‘Phase Two’: The illusion of transition and the reality of control

Washington claims the war has entered a ‘second phase,’ but conditions in Gaza show no power shift, no end to violence, and no real sovereignty

By Mohammad al-Ayoubi | The Cradle | January 20, 2026

The announcement arrived wrapped in the familiar choreography of diplomacy. Carefully chosen language, optimistic briefings, and reassurances that the war on Gaza had reached a new stage, one that would ease suffering and open the door to political reordering.

According to Washington, “phase two” of the ceasefire agreement had begun, signaling a move away from annihilation toward stability, governance, and transition.

In Gaza, the reality was less abstract. Israeli drones continued to hover above neighborhoods already reduced to rubble, Rafah remained sealed, bodies still arrived at hospitals, and Israeli forces showed no sign of withdrawal.

Aid trickled in sporadically, reconstruction remained a distant promise, and the daily mechanics of siege carried on uninterrupted. Nothing that defines a genuine shift in conditions or authority had materially changed, except the vocabulary used to describe it.

The question raised by the US announcement is therefore not whether ‘phase two’ has begun, but whether it was ever intended to exist as anything more than a political abstraction.

Is this a real transition in the trajectory of the war, or another exercise in linguistic repackaging meant to stabilize Israel’s position without addressing the foundations of the conflict itself?

The historical record leaves little room for doubt. US involvement in Palestine has consistently revolved around managing the scale and visibility of violence, calibrating its intensity in ways that safeguard Israel’s strategic dominance while containing diplomatic fallout.

Read in this context, ‘phase two’ emerges as a political device rather than a substantive shift. It is a framework meant to absorb the aftermath of mass destruction, shield Israel from international isolation, and reorder Palestinian life under post-war conditions, all while leaving untouched the structures that made the war inevitable.

A declaration without enforcement

Ibrahim al-Madhoun, a Palestinian writer and political analyst close to Hamas, tells The Cradle that Washington’s announcement amounts to nothing more than “a political position rather than a genuine transition on the ground,” especially given Israel’s failure to comply even with the terms of the first phase.

Israeli forces continue to expand what Palestinians refer to as the ‘Yellow Line,’ a militarized buffer zone that now consumes much of Gaza’s territory. Rafah remains closed, essential goods are blocked, targeted killings continue, and no meaningful reconstruction effort has begun. The conditions that defined the war before the ceasefire remain largely intact beneath a layer of diplomatic messaging.

Hazem Qassem, Hamas’s official spokesperson, echoes this assessment, acknowledging that while the announcement appears positive in form, “what has happened so far is a media declaration that requires concrete steps on the ground.” He emphasizes that Israel has failed to meet even the benchmarks of phase one, making any talk of a second phase more aspirational than real.

In the logic of international relations, a political declaration without enforcement mechanisms is no declaration at all. The US, which possesses full capacity to pressure Israel, has once again chosen the role of “biased mediator” – or more accurately, a partner in re-engineering the war through less crude means.

Netanyahu’s moment of clarity

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement describing the move to the second phase of the Gaza agreement as “largely symbolic” cannot be read as a marginal opinion or personal estimate.

It is an official Israeli definition of the function of this phase. When Netanyahu makes such a statement immediately after Washington’s announcement, and in front of the families of captives, he makes it clear that Tel Aviv does not treat ‘phase two’ as a binding executive path, but as political and media cover, allowing it to manage time and pressure without offering substantive concessions.

More revealing still was Netanyahu’s dismissal of the proposed Palestinian governing committee as symbolic as well. The implication was unmistakable. Israel does not recognize any Palestinian administration, even one stripped of factional power and framed as technocratic, as a sovereign actor. At best, such bodies are temporary facades. At worst, they are obstacles to be bypassed or neutralized.

This position directly undermines Washington’s narrative of “phased transition.” Israel is not preparing to withdraw, hand over authority, or allow meaningful Palestinian governance to take root.

Instead, it is preserving the outer shell of an agreement while hollowing out its content, a strategy refined through decades of negotiations that maintained form while denying substance.

Seen in this light, the US announcement functions as crisis management rather than conflict resolution, while the Israeli response amounts to an admission that there is no intention to leave Gaza, empower Palestinians, or commit to a political timetable.

‘Phase two’ is designed to freeze escalation and manage fallout, not to dismantle the structures that made the war inevitable.

A first phase that never materialized

From the perspective of Palestinian factions, the premise of phase two is flawed because phase one never truly existed in practice.

Israel did not withdraw from the ‘Yellow Line,’ which now covers roughly 60 percent of Gaza’s land. It did not open the crossings, halt its killing campaign, or allow unrestricted aid. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 460 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was announced, alongside over 1,100 violations, according to Hamas, including assassinations and incursions that continued even as the agreement was being celebrated diplomatically.

These figures alone dismantle the notion of transition.

Speaking to The Cradle, Mahfouz Manwar, a senior figure in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), argues “talk of a second phase is premature so long as Israel has not been compelled to implement the first phase.”

What exists, he says, is an agreement that survives on paper but has collapsed on the ground, with the concept of ‘phases’ repurposed as a mechanism to legitimize continued occupation at a reduced political cost.

What a real transition would require

If ‘phase two’ had genuinely begun, its indicators would be unmistakable. Israeli forces would withdraw from occupied areas, Rafah would open fully and without political conditions, targeted killings would cease, and reconstruction materials would begin entering Gaza at scale.

None of this has occurred.

Instead, Israel continues to use Rafah as a tool of pressure, blocking any Palestinian sovereign presence, even in its most symbolic form. Authority remains firmly in Israeli hands, reshaped through security arrangements that leave the underlying power balance intact. ‘Phase two,’ as it currently stands, operates as a managed delay rather than a move toward implementation.

At the center of the ‘phase two’ narrative lies the proposal for a transitional Palestinian administration in Gaza, a question that should not be treated as a bureaucratic detail but as a core indicator of whether any real shift is underway.

According to Madhoun and Qassem, Hamas approached the administrative committee as a Palestinian necessity rather than a concession to external pressure. The movement facilitated its formation, they argue, in order to ease humanitarian suffering and remove the pretexts used to justify continued war.

The principle of such a committee was agreed upon more than a year ago with Egyptian mediation, and clear criteria were established, including local representation from Gaza, independence from the occupation, and professional rather than factional qualifications. Disagreements over specific names did arise, as Madhoun acknowledges, but some were resolved through revisions while others remain under discussion, a dynamic that Manwar describes as natural within a fragmented national context.

What is striking, however, is the absence of Fatah from the Cairo talks, reflecting a deeper structural crisis in the Palestinian political system, where authority is fragmented and accountability diffuse. The more pressing question is not whether consensus exists, but whether Israel will permit any Palestinian body to function with real authority. Thus far, the answer has been unequivocally negative.

Administration without sovereignty

The proposed committee, reportedly headed by a former deputy planning minister in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ali Shaath, and composed of roughly 14 professionals from Gaza, has been presented as a step toward Palestinian self-administration. In reality, the environment in which it is expected to operate exposes the limits of that claim.

The backgrounds of its members have reportedly been vetted by the US, Israel, and Egypt, while its authority is tied to international oversight structures, and its freedom of movement remains subject to Israeli approval. This produces a familiar paradox: a Palestinian body tasked with administering a territory over which it exercises no control.

There is no authority over borders, airspace, or crossings, and not even autonomy over the movement of its own personnel. What emerges is not governance in any meaningful sense, but service provision under occupation, a structure designed to manage humanitarian fallout without possessing the political tools to address its causes.

Decision-making power remains external, particularly through international mechanisms overseeing reconstruction funding, reproducing a well-worn model in which local administrators operate beneath an internationalized center of control.

Hamas and the politics of withdrawal

One of the most consequential developments in this phase is Hamas’s declaration that it is prepared to relinquish administrative control of Gaza without exiting the national struggle. According to the movement’s leadership, this reflects a genuine effort to facilitate relief rather than a tactical maneuver.

By stepping back from civil governance, Hamas removes the primary Israeli-American justification for continued war. If the movement is no longer administering Gaza, the argument that military operations are necessary to dismantle its rule loses coherence. Yet history suggests that governance was never the real issue, and that Palestinian existence itself has always been treated as the fundamental problem.

Weapons and coercion

The attempt to link reconstruction to disarmament is widely viewed by Palestinian factions as a form of political blackmail. Both Hamas and PIJ reject the premise outright, arguing that it seeks to impose politically what Israel failed to achieve militarily.

Qassem states that Hamas is open to regulating weapons within a national framework, but not to surrendering them. Manwar highlights the contradiction at the heart of Israeli claims: if Israel insists it has already destroyed the resistance’s military capabilities, why does disarmament remain a central demand?

The answer lies not in security, but in symbolism. Weapons in Gaza are not merely arms, but markers of agency, and stripping them away would transform the territory from a space of resistance into one managed externally through security arrangements.

A ceasefire without an endpoint

There is little evidence that ‘phase two’ leads toward a permanent end to the war. What exists instead is a fragile pause, vulnerable to collapse, in which phases are used to reposition rather than resolve.

In its current form, ‘phase two’ risks becoming a form of undeclared trusteeship, a humanitarian administration without sovereignty, or a gradual erosion of resistance under sustained pressure.

None of these outcomes constitutes peace.

Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, and the US are presented as guarantors of the agreement, yet even American officials concede that there has been no progress on an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and that reopening Rafah ultimately remains an Israeli decision.

This admission captures the essence of the crisis. A second phase cannot succeed so long as Israel retains veto power over every operational detail. Only sustained pressure, not diplomatic optimism, can convert an agreement from text into lived reality.

What is unfolding in Gaza points away from any genuine transition toward peace and toward a reshaping of control under new terms. ‘Phase two’ has evolved into a test of Palestinian factions, regional mediators, and the credibility of international guarantees alike.

It will either open the way to an unconditional end to the war and meaningful reconstruction, or take its place among the many agreements reduced to form without substance.

Gaza, which endured annihilation without surrender, will not be subdued by administrative committees or phased rhetoric. The struggle has expanded beyond territory and military confrontation. It is now a battle over who defines politics, who controls humanitarianism, and who ultimately holds the right to decide.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Macron Is Trapped’: Double Standards in French President’s Davos Speech

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

François Asselineau, leader of French opposition party the Union Populaire Republicaine, points out that President Macron backed the US’s illegal military operation in Venezuela, but is now talking about ‘international law’ when it comes to Greenland.

“He approved Trump asserting the law of the strongest over international law,” Asselineau says. But now “he finds himself forced to call for a return to international law and multilateralism in an attempt to counter Trump’s desire to press his advantage by laying claim to Greenland.”

Macron’s WEF statement “about the need for European unanimity” only “touches on Europe’s permanent problem — that Europe doesn’t really exist,” the French opposition party leader stressed.

“It’s a fictitious entity made up of 27 states with different national interests,” Asselineau says. “We can already see this with Greenland. For example, there are several states that are not very critical of Donald Trump.”

Calling Macron’s position “extremely fragile,” he stresses that France is now “on very bad terms” with global powers including the US, China and Russia.
“It’s something like the twilight of the Macron presidency,” Asselineau argues. “Like many French people, I hope it ends as quickly as possible.”

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

What happens when START-3 expires, and US doesn’t want to prolong it?

By Ahmed Adel | January 20, 2026

Although START-3, the last strategic arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, expires on February 5, the two countries will most likely continue to informally respect it, unless Washington violates it. Washington likely wants the treaty to expire so a new agreement can be signed that will not limit the development of new weapons.

US President Donald Trump considers all agreements made before he took office outdated and does not want to accept restrictions from a bygone era. Russia has prepared for that, since the proposal to extend the agreement was made more than a year ago and received no response from the American side.

The US and Russia together possess almost 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, but Russia remains the largest nuclear power. The first START treaty was signed on July 31, 1991, at a summit in Moscow between then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush, and entered into force on December 5, 1994. This was the first document of its kind between the Soviet Union and the US, aimed at ensuring parity between the two sides, with the nuclear potential of both countries to be reduced by 30%. The treaty remained in force for a full 15 years, when START-3 was signed, the last strategic arms control treaty concluded between Russia and the US after the end of the Cold War.

With the Prague disarmament agreement, signed in 2010 by heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, Washington and Moscow committed to having no more than 700 deployed warheads and no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. The contract expired in February 2021, but the Joe Biden administration decided to extend the agreement for five years, without any amendments or changes.

Washington does not want this arms control agreement because Russia is now a step ahead in the development of modern weapons systems. Russia has manufactured weapons incomparable to anything else in the world, such as the Oreshnik and Poseidon systems, as well as nuclear-powered missiles, while the Americans believe that the restrictions under this agreement hinder their development in this direction and therefore do not want to limit themselves.

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, said that the US is likely not prepared to accept the Russian proposal to voluntarily extend the key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for another year.

It is recalled that on January 8, the US president said regarding START, “If it expires, it expires,” adding, “We’ll just do a better agreement.”

All these agreements were concluded in different eras and under different conditions, and the Americans could, conditionally speaking, once impose many things on Russia. Now they cannot, because Russia has an advantage across a wide range of areas today, such as modernizing 95% of its nuclear forces, something the Americans have not done yet. Russia also has hypersonic missiles that have already been tested on the battlefield, which the Americans do not.

Trump stated in 2020 during his previous presidential term that the US possesses a “super-duper missile” about seventeen times faster than turbine-powered cruise missiles like the Tomahawk and unlike any other in the world, but such a missile has not been shown to the public to this day. Then the Trump administration claimed that Russia developed hypersonic weapons, allegedly stealing some technologies from the US.

Based on all this, the Trump administration considers the circumstances and refuses to enter into any agreements or treaties that limit US capabilities.

In reaching any new nuclear arms agreement, beyond Russia and the US, several other players would need to be involved, with the US president primarily considering China. From Washington’s perspective, Russia should persuade China to join the deal. However, China refuses to do so because its nuclear arsenal is much smaller than Russia’s and the US’s. Additionally, Trump might have also considered India.

However, if Moscow and Washington, for example, say that such an attitude is acceptable regarding China, there is the question of how they will handle England and France, which also possess nuclear weapons. It is clear, therefore, that American think tanks are working to develop different options for establishing a new world order, but it will mainly be ‘peace through force’ under United States dominance.

There is a possibility that Russia will announce it will continue to respect the limits of the agreement, as long as Washington does not violate them. What the Americans, for their part, will say is unknown, but there have been Trump’s statements about the necessity of resuming nuclear tests, which are banned. Moscow responded that they are against resuming, but if the US conducts nuclear tests, the Russians will immediately carry out their own in response.

In that case, a nuclear arms race could occur, which would lead to increased strategic risks and potentially threaten global security. Therefore, Moscow believes that responsible and restrained behavior by nuclear states is more important than ever and is firmly committed to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that it must never be started.

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

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

How did the EU get hooked on American gas?

Pressure from Washington and compliance from Brussels has left the bloc at the mercy of the US

RT | January 20, 2026

The EU fears its long-term dependence on American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. Promised “molecules of freedom” by Washington, Europe now finds itself in a prison largely of its own design.

The EU has embraced a “potentially high-risk new geopolitical dependency” on American LNG, a new report by the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) warned last week.

With the US set to supply up to 80% of the bloc’s LNG imports by 2030, a European diplomat told Politico that some officials in Brussels now see themselves completely at the mercy of the US, which could shut off the supply if, for example, the Europeans opposed an American annexation of Greenland.

How did we get here?

The EU imported 45% of its gas from Russia before the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, with Russia the bloc’s largest foreign supplier since the end of the Cold War.

However, a revolution began in the US in 1998 that would end in the EU severing its decades-long energy links with Russia. Mitchell Energy, a Texas-based company, carried out the first successful natural gas extraction via slick-water fracturing. This milestone kicked off the US’ fracking boom, which turned the country into a net energy exporter.

US shale gas output soared from negligible volumes around the turn of the millennium to roughly 30 trillion cubic feet a year by the mid-2020s. Washington began to look abroad for new markets.

‘Molecules of freedom’ and the politics of coercion

The Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all lobbied Europe to switch from Russian gas to American LNG, with Donald Trump’s Department of Energy describing the American product as “molecules of freedom” in 2019. For two decades the Europeans were unreceptive: Russian gas, piped directly through Ukraine or via the Nord Stream 1 lines, was 30-50% cheaper than US LNG, which had to be converted to liquid, stored on container ships, and then regasified in special port facilities after crossing the Atlantic.

Barack Obama offered more favorable prices if the Europeans would make the switch, while Trump slapped sanctions on Nord Stream.

When Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the Americans finally got their opportunity to capture the European market for good. Europe’s Atlantacist leaders – among them EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz – eagerly went along with Joe Biden’s sanctions on Russian energy, and gas imports from Russia fell to 11% in 2024.

What does Nord Stream have to do with it?

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas lines presented a dilemma for the Biden administration: as long as they remained intact, the EU could – however unlikely – choose to cut support for Ukraine and negotiate a return to cheaper Russian gas.

Biden promised in early 2022 to “bring an end” to Nord Stream. “I promise you,” he told reporters at a White House press conference, “we will be able to do it.” The Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines were sabotaged in a series of explosions that September, and while there is no concrete proof of US culpability, American journalist Seymour Hersh maintains that Biden ordered the CIA to carry out the sabotage operation.

According to Hersh, Biden ordered the operation specifically to deny Germany the chance to back out of the proxy war in Ukraine.

Is there any way back to cheap gas?

Russian gas still reaches the EU via the TurkStream pipeline, as well as by ships from the Yamal LNG facility in Siberia. However, EU leaders intend to fully cut off all Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.

The EU is currently the world’s largest importer of LNG, and more than half of its LNG terminals have come online or entered the planning or construction phases since 2022. The US now supplies 57% of the bloc’s LNG imports and 37% of its total gas imports, up from 28% and 6%, respectively, in 2021.

Even if the political will to change this situation existed, the EU is legally bound to deepen its dependence on the US. Under a trade deal signed by von der Leyen and Trump last July, the EU is required to purchase $750 billion worth of US energy by 2028. Essentially, Brussels cannot refuse what Washington is offering.

Russia maintains that it is a reliable energy supplier, and that the EU chose “economic suicide” in abandoning Russian gas.

How will the US use this leverage against the EU?

European leaders were seemingly content to trade away their energy security during the Biden years and to further bind themselves to the US under the Trump-von der Leyen trade deal. The risks of this approach became apparent last weekend, when Trump announced 10% tariffs on eight European nations for opposing his planned acquisition of Greenland.

Trump has warned that the levy will rise to 25% by June 1 if Denmark refuses to cede the territory. While the EU has threatened retaliatory tariffs, it is completely defenseless if Trump decides to cut gas exports as a punitive measure.

“Hopefully we’ll not get there,” an EU diplomat told Politico. However, hope is the only tool the Europeans have at the moment.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Why EU ‘Has No Alternative’ But to Return to Russian Gas Imports Sooner Than Later

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Fears are growing as Europe becomes increasingly dependent on American LNG—once viewed as a safe alternative to Russian gas, but now seen as uncertain amid strained transatlantic relations, according to a media report.

With EU–US tensions rising over Ukraine and Greenland, “it is virtually impossible for the bloc to stop buying American LNG without having to allow Russian gas imports to return,” says Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, international oil economist and global energy expert.

He notes that while the threat of halting US LNG imports “could act as a deterrent against Trump annexing Greenland,” the reality is that “the EU has no alternative but to return to Russian gas sooner than later.”

According to Salameh, the US sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline network was intended to “forever sever Russian gas supplies to Europe and ensure that US LNG replaces Russian gas permanently.” Instead, he argues, “this turned out to be a real financial disaster for Europe’s economy.”

He points to 2025, when the EU economy grew by only about 1.4%, with many German and other European companies—including Volkswagen—relocating in search of cheaper energy. Looking ahead, Salameh warns that the EU’s plan to end all Russian energy imports by early 2027 “will mean anemic economic growth for Europe’s economy.”

As a result, he says, the bloc now faces “a big dilemma, namely letting its economy stagnate if not shrink or lifting sanctions on Russian gas.”

With Europe now “squeezed between a rock and a hard place,” Salameh concludes that it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who “will have the last laugh.”

He adds that Putin could choose to resume gas supplies to Europe—a move that, he argues, could reshape the future of NATO and Europe’s relationship with the US.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO without America: Europe’s trial run ends in a reality check

Steadfast Dart 2026 exposes how fragile European security looks once the US steps aside

By Andrei Medvedev | RT | January 20, 2026

NATO has launched major military exercises – Steadfast Dart 2026. The drills involve over 10,000 troops from 11 countries: Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye. The primary goal is to assess the bloc’s readiness for the rapid deployment of substantial forces. The exercises will continue until mid-March.

At first glance, it might seem like just another NATO exercise. But here’s the catch: The US is not taking part. The initiative is purely European, and aims to achieve two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate that Europe is strong, unafraid of American influence, and capable of protecting its interests – not only by producing AI animations about heroic Vikings defending Greenland, but through real military strength.

The second goal is to find out whether Europe can operate independently, without US support. The answer is probably not. It’s no secret that 70% of NATO’s budget comes from US contributions. But beyond finances, NATO intelligence is primarily reliant on the US. Satellite communication, coordination, and command structures are also all built around a model in which the US acts as the ‘big brother’ to its European partners.

Russian journalists have witnessed this dynamic in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan (NATO did not officially conduct an operation there, but in reality, it entered the country). Who owns the largest and safest bases? Who oversees all sector units? Who plans operations and sets combat tasks? The big brother – the US. In Kosovo, for instance, NATO allies couldn’t just enter Camp Bondsteel. The base was American, and the Europeans had to get a special pass to enter.

Until recently, Europe seemed perfectly content with its ‘junior partner’ status. What fueled the EU’s prosperity? Cheap Russian (initially Soviet) resources with stable supply lines and minimal security expenses. Security was outsourced to the Americans: US bases, air support, missile defense… Then Trump came along, and in typical businessman fashion, said if you want protection, you’ll have to pay for it.

Is there a NATO without the US? That’s the question European military leaders will grapple with during these exercises – though they likely already know the answer. Sure, NATO would exist, but it would be very costly for the EU; or perhaps it won’t exist at all, which means Europe must concede that the master will do as he pleases. And the ‘master’ – America – is well aware of this.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently stated that the US will remain in NATO. But just look how he put it. Asked what’s more important to US security interests, NATO or Greenland, Bessent replied: “That’s a false choice. The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella.”

In the current climate, when Europe’s economy is struggling (for example, BMW and Mercedes are now using Chinese engines, and BASF is making only a third of what it used to), the idea of a European NATO seems far-fetched. Europe just doesn’t have the money for it.

Neither does it have the military equipment – most of it has been sent to Ukraine, and what’s left would last a month or so in a high-intensity conflict. Moreover, Euro-NATO doesn’t have that many armies with real combat experience outside of the bloc.

Sure, there is France, which has been engaged in prolonged operations in the Sahel. And Türkiye. However, even their combat experience is powerless in a situation in which there is no money. Fighting Bedouins in the Sahel or Kurds in Syria is worlds apart from facing an adversary like China or Russia – or, in the new reality, the US.

The fact that the US is not taking part in NATO’s latest military exercises (despite being able to easily deploy their troops from bases in Germany or Italy) is quite telling. America’s message to Europe is clear: Let’s see how you do without us and then come running back.

The lesson is humiliating. But after all, they got into this mess by themselves.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US’ European Vassals Taught Bitter Lesson With Greenland Crisis

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Commenting on the topics discussed by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his 2025 diplomacy year-in-review presser, Daffodil International University journalism professor and international politics expert Greg Simons detailed two main themes: Ukraine and the breakdown of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’.

The Greenland crisis shows that “when you are such a servile lackey as the EU, eventually you get to be ‘on the menu’, especially when the US empire, this Pax Americana, is in decline,” Dr. Simons told Sputnik.

“The EU has nowhere to go.” Their leaders “can bluster, they can try and bluff, but to use Trump’s terminology, they have absolutely no cards… They have no honor, they have no dignity, they have no respect, either for themselves or the EU. So this is not going to go well for the EU.”

As for Ukraine, while Washington has apparently recognized that the proxy war with Russia is “lost” and that Ukraine is “a liability,” the Europeans are pushing headfirst into prolonging the conflict, no matter the cost to themselves, Simons noted.

“Europeans seem to have their head in the clouds and unaware or not willing to see” the “risks and hazards coming up for them,” the observer stressed.

Then there’s the dysfunction at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

“If you prevent consensus on issues, an organization such as the OSCE is absolutely useless because consensus should be reached on objectively coming together on mutually acceptable and mutually favorable grounds,” Simons said.

“What they’ve turned it into is just this platform for pillorying countries such as Russia or those that stand for their interests and objectives rather than those of the US. I absolutely agree with the foreign minister’s characterization – that the situation of the OSCE is catastrophic. I would doubt it can be saved, mostly because of what the so-called Global North, those Western countries at the behest of the US did to make sure that it could no longer function effectively as an organization to be a bridge between different interests, different worlds (which it no longer is).”

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Diesen: How the Nordic Countries abandoned the Pursuit of Peace and went Confrontational

Max Otte | January 12, 2026

Did you know that Norway recently allowed over 30 US bases on its territory? (Without calling them “bases.”) The confrontation with Russia in the Arctic is heating up.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ continues to block US firms from acquiring Iron Dome code

Al Mayadeen | January 19, 2026

The Israeli Security Ministry has halted approval of a planned United States takeover of Amprest Systems, a company whose command-and-control software forms a core component of the Iron Dome specialized anti-air system, citing concerns over non-Israeli control of classified military technology.

The proposed deal would see US-listed Ondas Holdings acquire control of Amprest in a transaction valuing the company at more than $200 million. Under the proposed terms, Ondas would acquire the shares held by Amprest’s existing shareholders, excluding Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, in a transaction valued at approximately $100 million, leaving Rafael a minority stake in the company.

Security officials involved in the review have reportedly raised objections to a non-Israeli entity gaining control over Amprest, given the company’s central role in Iron Dome and other Israeli anti-air programs that involve classified command-and-control capabilities.

Prolonged review and internal tensions

The transaction is being reviewed by the Security Ministry’s “Department for Security of the Defense Establishment” (Malmab), headed by Yuval Shimoni. People familiar with the process say the review has dragged on for months, with no clear timeline or indication of whether the deal will ultimately be approved.

The delay has exposed internal tensions within the Security Ministry between officials seeking to attract external capital into “Israel’s” warfare technology sector and security bodies tasked with preventing sensitive military know-how from falling under external control. The lack of coordination has sent contradictory signals to investors. While the Security Ministry Director General, Major General (res.) Amir Baram, and the head of the ministry’s research and development directorate, Brigadier General (res.) Danny Gold, have publicly encouraged deeper cooperation with foreign investors, Malmab has effectively become a bottleneck.

“There is no holistic view,” a senior source familiar with the process told Israeli news website Ynet.

“Investors put tens of millions of dollars into Amprest years ago and are now told they cannot exit for security reasons,” the source said, explaining, “Under those conditions, who will want to invest in defense tech?”

Supporters of the deal contend it could proceed under strict safeguards, including limits on access, governance, and technology transfer, while critics say the process has been marked by unusually slow decision-making and heavy bureaucracy.

Amprest’s role in Iron Dome

Amprest was established around 25 years ago by Natan Barak, a retired Israeli Navy officer with the rank of colonel. Its profile rose significantly about 15 years ago after its command-and-control software was integrated into Iron Dome. In 2012, the company received the “Israel Defense Prize” for its contribution to the occupation’s specialized anti-air systems.

The company’s largest shareholder is Rafael, with the remaining shares held by Barak, the OurCrowd investment platform, and other investors. Most of Amprest’s activity is in the military sector, with Rafael as its main customer. According to people involved in the talks, Amprest had never been offered for sale before Ondas made its proposal, which one source described as “an offer shareholders couldn’t refuse.”

Ondas’ expanding footprint

Ondas, which trades on Nasdaq, has rapidly expanded its presence in “Israel’s” defense sector since October 7, 2023, assembling a portfolio of nine warfare-related companies. The firm says it has spent roughly $400 million on acquisitions to date.

Its purchases include Sentrycs, a counter-drone technology company acquired in November for $125 million in cash and $100 million in stock, and Roboteam, a military ground robotics firm bought for about $80 million. Other acquisitions include M4 Defense, Iron Drone, Apeiro Motion, Insight Intelligent Sensors, and S.P.O., a manufacturer of precision optical components. In late 2022, Ondas acquired Airobotics for about $15 million, folding it into American Robotics. Airobotics develops autonomous drones and received US Federal Aviation Administration approval to operate over populated areas.

The company’s leadership includes several former senior figures from Rafael, among them former Rafael CEO Major General (res.) Yoav Har-Even, who sits on Ondas’ advisory board, and Brigadier General (res.) Oshri Lugassy, a former senior engineering officer at Rafael who now serves as Ondas’ co-CEO and leads its most active division, Ondas Autonomous Systems (OAS). While Ondas is legally incorporated in the United States, its technological foundations, leadership, and current growth engine are deeply rooted in the Israeli military ecosystem, bringing forward questions regarding Malmab’s reservations.

Ondas and Full Spectrum

Ondas’ origins trace back to an Israeli startup known as Full Spectrum Inc., which developed the core technology behind what is now Ondas Networks, one of the company’s two main divisions. Full Spectrum was co-founded by Israeli engineer Menashe Shahar, who continues to serve as chief technology officer of Ondas Networks.

In September 2018, the current public entity, then operating as Zev Ventures, a US-based company, carried out a reverse acquisition of Ondas Networks Inc., the rebranded Full Spectrum, and subsequently adopted the name Ondas Holdings Inc.

Until late 2023, the company’s primary revenue stream came from a single wireless communications product developed by the original Israeli engineering team. Since then, Ondas’ growth has been driven largely by OAS, which has expanded rapidly through acquisitions of the aforementioned dual-use and warfare Israeli firms. Although Ondas is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, a significant portion of its research, development, and operational activity remains centered in Israeli-occupied territories.

Market concerns and unanswered questions

According to Ynet, some industry figures have expressed unease over Ondas’ rapid growth and surging market valuation, which has reportedly climbed to around $5 billion following a $1 billion stock offering. One market source likened the rise to the speculative SPAC boom in the early 2020s.

Questions have also been raised about what Rafael stands to gain from the Amprest deal, given that Rafael is expected to remain Amprest’s main customer even if Ondas were to take control.

“The Iron Dome name is a premium brand,” the source said, adding, “Ondas needs it to impress investors and open doors.”

At the same time, Ondas is reportedly in talks with Rafael over the potential acquisition of Controp, another subsidiary that develops electro-optical systems, including cameras for unmanned aerial vehicles. Unlike Amprest, Controp has been openly offered for sale, and last year, US-based AeroVironment was said to be interested in acquiring a 50% stake at a valuation of $600 million to $700 million.

Is Iron Dome software shielded from US access?

Despite close military cooperation between “Israel” and the United States, specifically on the Iron Dome program, the core command-and-control software underpinning Iron Dome has remained legally and technically protected from full American access, even at the cost of major procurement and integration opportunities.

As of January 2026, the Israeli government continues to retain strict control over Iron Dome’s source code, treating it as sovereign intellectual property tied directly to “national security”. While Washington has provided significant funding and participates in co-production, Israeli authorities have consistently refused to transfer the system’s key codes to the US military.

Lurking friction

This position has generated friction in the past. In 2020, the US Army abandoned a roughly $1 billion plan to fully integrate Iron Dome into its air defense architecture after “Israel” declined to share the source code needed to connect the system with American command-and-control networks. As a result, the two Iron Dome batteries currently operated by the US function as standalone assets, unable to fully interface with broader US radar and battle management systems.

The same concern has driven Israeli intervention in the takeover of Amprest.

Rather than sharing the original source code, Tel Aviv and Washington have relied on alternative mechanisms to maintain cooperation. These include tightly controlled technical escrow arrangements, under which limited integration work can be performed without transferring full ownership or visibility over proprietary software. In parallel, US defense contractors such as Raytheon have worked with Rafael to develop US-specific variants of Iron Dome components, including the SkyHunter interceptor, using modified or adapted software that can interface with American systems while preserving the core logic of the original Israeli command-and-control software.

These arrangements underscore that Iron Dome’s software, and by extension companies such as Amprest, remains legally protected and politically sensitive within “Israel’s” military establishment, even as such safeguards draw growing criticism for entrenched protectionism.

Read more: US throws itself into THAAD shortage for ‘Israel’s’ sake; 1/4 lost

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Changing Face of Regime Change

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | January 19, 2026

The most disturbing lesson from the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine that has been well-learned by the various intelligence agencies in this business is that the application of extreme violence – especially aimed at law enforcement, other state authorities, and civilians – provides an effective template upon which to further the regime change narrative. Everything can be blamed on “the regime” and thus serve the purpose of the operation.

We have seen this recently in Iran.

When I was on the ground observing the early “color revolutions” in the 1990s in Eastern Europe it was simply about getting warm bodies in the street to wave the correct flags and mouth the NED-approved slogans and to demand a new election, the most recent one having been “stolen.”

Questioning legitimacy of elections was enough at that early stage. Even Western polls suggesting the election result matched the will of the people (as in the 2006 Belarus presidential election and subsequent “Denim Revolution” I monitored on the ground) did not dissuade the protesters. But that was all fun and games compared to what came next.

Now it is about bodies and blood and particularly the most gruesome injuries. This is difficult for any legitimate state authority to defend against, as any application of counter-force only feeds the narrative of a violent regime determined to quell “legitimate” desire for political pluralism.

For a successful regime change in the current conditions there must be maximum bloodshed. And it does not matter whose blood is shed, it can all be blamed on “the regime.” The bots and fake social media accounts under control of intelligence agencies can take care of that part. Amplify atrocities, regardless whence they came.

Heavier bloodshed also feeds the ignorance and voyeurism of the intended Western and (especially) US audiences. “Thar be dragons,” is the rallying cry. Everything beyond our borders is unsophisticated and bestial, while at the same time longing to be exactly as we are.

We saw this clearly in the well-orchestrated attacks against state law enforcement authorities in Ukraine/Maidan in 2014. What would normally have sufficed to return society to order was shown to be woefully inadequate in the face of extremely violent agents on the ground including snipers on the rooftops and “wet works” specialists willing to murder law enforcement with their bare hands. The more violence the better. The more gruesome the better.

Lenin understood it well: “The worse the better.” You must recruit the absolute lowest and most violent dregs of society to carry out the operation. But then that has been the CIA Operations Directorate modus operandi since its founding. Which is why President Truman was desperate to strangle his own baby in the cradle.

Through some serendipity, the extreme violence of the CIA/MI6/Mossad attempted regime change operation we just witnessed in Iran was defeated by technology (likely imported from Iran’s allies) targeting the plan at its weakest point: communications and coordination. Extreme acts of violence against state authorities and average citizens have no value unless coordinated for propaganda purposes.

No less than President Trump himself reduced the entire operation to body counts. So the regime-changers had the incentive to produce more bodies and their recruits on the ground were only too happy to comply.

But something happened: the shutdown of Elon Musk’s ill-advised gift of Starlink to the violent Israel-sponsored extremists was defeated somehow and you had a gang of violent killers with no directions from Langley or Tel Aviv on who to kill next.

And it turns out that no matter what you think about that country six thousand miles away, it is not as easy as the neocons claim to overthrow the government and usher in at the point of a gun “democracy” DC style. With rainbow parades and promises of an atheistic, multi-culti paradise a la – ironically – the ICE resisters in Minnesota or Seattle.

Overseas, the neocon Right becomes the most ideologically insane version of the Minnesota Left: “Iran needs to celebrate multi-culturalism, atheism, and pan-sexuality!”

OK.

In the world of US Middle East regime change hegemony there is no Right or Left. It’s all been contracted out to Tel Aviv, as our tech world has been contracted out to H1B visas. Connect the dots and realize, as the Communists so well realized, what are the correlation of forces for and against you.

Husbanding the entirety of the US global military empire to overthrow the main impediment of Israel’s “Greater Israel” goal to conquer the Middle East is in no way in accord to our own interests or future well-being. On the contrary.

The US embrace of extreme violence – the “Israel model” – overseas can only harm our actual national interest. Embracing the latest iteration of the “regime change” template not only betrays our supposed moral high-ground, it hastens the correlation of forces against dollar hegemony and against the survival of America’s own oligarch class.

Oppose this or get used to being poor, immoral, and dead.

Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Truth as first casualty: Deconstructing disinformation campaign on Iran riots death toll

By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | January 19, 2026

Amid the foreign-instigated riots and terrorism that struck Iran in recent weeks, a parallel narrative war also unfolded, centered on the deliberate propagation of wildly inflated and unverifiable casualty figures.

These figures were designed to manufacture global outrage and legitimize calls for American military intervention and yet another aggression against the Islamic Republic.

The discourse surrounding riot-related casualties in the past few weeks has been fundamentally shaped by a coordinated disinformation campaign originating from US-funded organizations operating entirely outside Iran. Central to this campaign was the circulation of sensational death tolls that bore little resemblance to verifiable facts on the ground.

The figure of 12,000 deaths was initially promoted by the New York–based Center for Human Rights in Iran, an organization financially linked to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US Congress–funded entity with a well-documented history of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

This claim was presented without transparent methodology, primary data, or independent verification, raising eyebrows both inside and outside the country.

Despite this lack of evidence, the narrative was uncritically amplified by major Western media outlets and online influencers, creating a pervasive – but demonstrably false – impression of mass violence. Iranian officials consistently rejected these claims, presenting forensic evidence of manipulated datasets and instead reporting a death toll in the hundreds, the majority of whom were security personnel and civilians killed by armed rioters with foreign backing.

The subsequent escalation of these figures to even more implausible numbers – such as claims of 52,000 dead – underscores the persistence of a hybrid warfare strategy aimed at demonizing Iran while obscuring or outright excusing the violence committed by its adversaries.

Genesis of a false narrative: Center for Human Rights in Iran and its backers

The primary source of the sensational 12,000-fatality claim was neither an Iranian authority nor a verifiable international body, but the Center for Human Rights in Iran, an organization headquartered in New York. Despite its name, the group operates entirely outside Iran and has no physical presence or investigative capacity within the country.

An examination of its leadership and funding reveals a clear political orientation inconsistent with impartial human rights monitoring. The chair of its board is Minky Worden, an American activist with a documented history of spearheading anti-China advocacy campaigns, including efforts to politicize the Beijing Winter Olympics.

Financially, the organization relies heavily on grants from the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. The NED is a privately managed but publicly funded institution that receives annual allocations from the US Congress through the State Department budget.

Historians, observers, and former intelligence officials have long characterized the NED as a transparent successor to activities once conducted covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency, particularly the funding of political opposition groups and media outlets under the banner of “democracy promotion.”

The NED’s record includes extensive involvement in “regime-change” efforts across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and West Asia – regions that have consistently featured in American foreign policy campaigns.

Amplification network: From NED grantees to global headlines

The unfounded casualty figure did not remain confined to a single organization. It was rapidly injected into the global media bloodstream through a tightly networked ecosystem of interconnected groups.

Other NED-funded entities, including the Human Rights Activists News Agency and the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center, echoed and cross-cited the same unsubstantiated statistics.

Operating largely from the US, these organizations function within a closed loop of mutual citation, manufacturing the illusion of multiple independent confirmations.

This echo chamber was then leveraged by major Western media outlets, including BBC Persian, Voice of America, The Washington Post, and ABC News, which incorporated the figures into their reporting.

Typically, these outlets attributed the numbers vaguely to “human rights groups” or “activists,” effectively laundering the information and granting it a veneer of credibility without conducting any independent verification. This failure is particularly striking given the well-documented funding sources and political objectives of the originating organizations.

Crucially, much of this coverage omitted the context that these groups are financially and ideologically aligned with the very governments actively seeking to pressure, isolate, and destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iranian rebuttal and exposure of fabricated evidence

Iranian government officials and domestic media mounted a comprehensive, forensic rebuttal to the widespread disinformation campaign. The judiciary’s spokesperson and the head of the Supreme National Security Council categorically denounced the claim of 12,000 deaths as “psychological warfare” and a “complete fabrication.”

They publicly challenged the originators of the figure to provide a single verifiable name, death certificate, or precise locational detail to substantiate their alleged casualty lists, a challenge that was never answered.

Cyber units affiliated with Iranian media conducted technical analyses tracing the viral dissemination of the figures to known bot networks operating from locations in the United States, Israeli-occupied territories, and Albania.

Further investigations revealed that purported “martyr lists” were riddled with fraud: hundreds of duplicate entries, names of individuals who had died decades earlier during the Holy Defense war, and even names copied directly from public cemetery records in other countries.

The case of Saghar Etemadi became emblematic of the deception. Widely declared a “martyr” by external outlets, she was later confirmed by the Iranian judiciary and by her own family to be alive and receiving medical treatment for injuries sustained during a riot.

Iranian reports emphasized that the actual death toll, resulting from terrorist acts carried out by foreign-backed armed rioters, numbered in the hundreds. A significant proportion of the victims were police officers, Basij forces, and civilians deliberately targeted by violent saboteurs.

Escalation to absurdity and the weaponization of atrocity propaganda

The disinformation ecosystem demonstrated its capacity for rapid and unchecked escalation.

From the initial claim of 12,000 deaths, narratives soon proliferated across social media platforms and activist circles alleging 52,000 fatalities and more than 300,000 wounded.

These figures, divorced from any conceivable reality, serve a deliberate psychological and political function. They are designed to induce global emotional shock, overwhelm critical scrutiny, and portray the Iranian state as uniquely and exceptionally undemocratic

This narrative fulfills a dual geopolitical purpose, according to experts. First, it seeks to manufacture consent for foreign intervention, intensified sanctions, or diplomatic isolation by invoking a humanitarian pretext. Second, it functions as a tool of distraction and moral laundering.

By creating a false equivalence, or even attempting to eclipse, the documented casualties inflicted by the Israeli regime in Gaza, the campaign aims to redirect global outrage and obscure the horrendous crimes of Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s allies.

Influencers and online networks aligned with the Israeli regime aggressively promoted the fabricated Iranian casualty figures in an effort to undermine the global Palestine solidarity movement and digitally overwrite the extensive evidence of Israeli war crimes.

Underlying architecture: NED as a US “regime-change” instrument

The role of the National Endowment for Democracy is central to understanding the structural foundations of this disinformation campaign. Leaked documents and historical analyses reveal the NED as a key instrument of US foreign policy, operating as a conduit for government funds to support political movements aligned with American strategic interests abroad.

The organization was established following congressional scrutiny of CIA covert operations. One of its founders, Allen Weinstein, openly acknowledged that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The NED’s activities extend far beyond Iran. It has been a principal funder and organizer of so-called “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and has been formally designated an “undesirable organization” by Russia for interference in domestic affairs. Its involvement in Hong Kong and Xinjiang has prompted sanctions from China.

In the Iranian context, the NED has for decades funded an array of exile media outlets, advocacy groups, and cultural figures, with the explicit aim of cultivating an alternative political leadership.

A leaked 2024 proposal revealed NED plans to funnel State Department resources into an “Iran Freedom Coalition” composed of US neoconservatives and selected exile figures, exposing the direct link between humanitarian narrative construction and overt regime-change ambitions.

A perennial pattern of narrative warfare

The manipulation of casualty figures during the 2025–2026 unrest is not an isolated episode, but part of a recurring tactic in the long-running hybrid war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The pattern is consistent and predictable: a US-funded NGO, operating safely from New York or Washington, releases an unverifiable and sensational claim. A network of affiliated organizations and social media assets amplifies it, after which mainstream Western media repackages it as credible reporting.

The objective is never truth, but the construction of a carefully engineered perceptual reality serving strategic interests. This reality is designed to demonize independent states, legitimize coercive policies, and erase or minimize the crimes of allied regimes.

The Iranian experience, from the myth of 12,000 deaths to the even more fantastical claim of 52,000, stands as a stark case study in the weaponization of information in the 21st century.

In this domain, the battlefield is not only the street, but global consciousness itself, and the most powerful weapons are often not missiles, but meticulously crafted falsehoods.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »