Netanyahu’s endgame: Isolation and the shattered illusion of power
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | May 20, 2025
There was a time when Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have all the cards. The Palestinian Authority was largely passive, the occupied West Bank was relatively calm, Israel’s diplomatic reach was expanding, and the United States seemed ready to bend international law to accommodate Israel’s desire for complete control over Palestine.
The Israeli prime minister had also, at least in his own estimation, succeeded in subduing Gaza, the persistently defiant enclave that had for years struggled unsuccessfully to break the suffocating Israeli blockade.
Within Israel, Netanyahu had been celebrated as the nation’s longest-serving prime minister, a figure who promised not only longevity but also unprecedented prosperity. To mark this milestone, Netanyahu employed a visual prop: a map of the Middle East, or, in his own words, “the New Middle East.”
This envisioned new Middle East, according to Netanyahu, was a unified green bloc, representing a future of ‘great blessings’ under Israeli leadership.
Conspicuously absent from this map was Palestine in its entirety—both historic Palestine, now Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu’s latest unveiling occurred at the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September, 2023. His supposedly triumphant address was sparsely attended, and among those present, enthusiasm was notably absent. This, however, seemed of little consequence to Netanyahu, his coalition of extremists, or the broader Israeli public.
Historically, Israel has placed its reliance on the support of a select few nations considered, in their own calculus, to be of primary importance: Washington and a handful of European capitals.
Then came the October 7 assault. Initially, Israel leveraged the Palestinian attack to garner Western and international support, both validating its existing policies and justifying its intended response. However, this sympathy rapidly dissipated as it became apparent that Israel’s response entailed a campaign of genocide, the extermination of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza’s population and West Bank communities.
As images and footage of the devastating carnage in Gaza surfaced, anti-Israeli sentiment surged. Even Israel’s allies struggled to justify the deliberate killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, predominantly women and children.
Nations like Britain imposed partial arms embargoes on Israel, while France attempted a balancing act, calling for a ceasefire while suppressing domestic activists advocating for the same. The pro-Israel Western narrative has become increasingly incoherent, yet remains deeply problematic.
Washington, under President Biden, initially maintained unwavering support, implicitly endorsing Israel’s objective – genocide and ethnic cleansing.
However, as Israel failed to achieve its perceived objectives, Biden’s public stance began to shift. He called for a ceasefire, though without demonstrating any tangible willingness to pressure Israel. Biden’s staunch support for Israel has been cited by many as a contributing factor to the Democratic Party’s losses in the 2024 elections.
Then, Trump arrived. Netanyahu and his supporters, both in Israel and Washington, anticipated that Israel’s actions in Palestine and the wider region — Lebanon, Syria, etc — would align with a broader strategic plan.
They believed Trump’s administration would be willing to escalate further. This escalation, they envisioned, would include military action against Iran, the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, the fragmentation of Syria, the weakening of Yemen’s Ansarallah, and more, without significant concessions.
Initially, Trump signalled a willingness to pursue this agenda: deploying heavier bombs, issuing direct threats against Iran, intensifying operations against Ansarallah, and expressing interest in controlling Gaza and displacing its population.
However, Netanyahu’s expectations yielded only unfulfilled promises. This raises the question: was Trump deliberately misleading Netanyahu, or did evolving circumstances necessitate a reassessment of his initial plans?
The latter explanation appears more plausible. Efforts to intimidate Iran proved ineffective, leading to a series of diplomatic engagements between Tehran and Washington, first in Oman, then in Rome.
Ansarallah demonstrated resilience, prompting the US on 6 May to curtail its military campaigns in Yemen, specifically the Operation ‘Rough Rider’. On 16 May, a US official announced that the USS Harry S. Truman would withdraw from the region.
Notably, on 12 May, Hamas and Washington announced a separate agreement, independent of Israel, for the release of US-Israeli captive Edan Alexander.
The culmination occurred on 14 May, when Trump delivered a speech at a US-Saudi investment forum in Riyadh, advocating for regional peace and prosperity, lifting sanctions on Syria, and emphasising a diplomatic resolution with Iran.
Conspicuously absent from these regional shifts was Benjamin Netanyahu and his strategic ‘vision’.
Netanyahu responded to these developments by intensifying military operations against Palestinian hospitals in Gaza, targeting patients within the Nasser and European Hospitals. This action, targeting the most vulnerable, was interpreted as a message to Washington and Arab states that his objectives remained unchanged, regardless of the consequences.
The intensified Israeli military operations in Gaza are an attempt by Netanyahu to project strength amidst perceived political vulnerability. This escalation has resulted in a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties and exacerbated food shortages, if not outright famine, for over two million people.
It remains uncertain how long Netanyahu will remain in power, but his political standing has significantly deteriorated. He faces widespread domestic opposition and international condemnation. Even his primary ally, the United States, has signalled a shift in its approach. This period may mark the beginning of the end for Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career and, potentially, for the policies associated with his horrifically violent government.
Exposing Hypocrisy: Palestine, the ICJ, and the Collapse of Liberal Legitimacy
By Taut Bataut – New Eastern Outlook – May 20, 2025
ICJ has recently postponed the hearing of South Africa’s case against Israeli war crimes to January 12, 2026, providing it more time to annihilate Gaza. This marks the collapse and failure of the international system.
The Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
Since October 7, 2023, the Palestinians have been facing one of the worst genocidal operations in the world. More than 50000 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, have been intentionally killed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) under the pretense of eliminating Hamas. However, this war has exposed the self-proclaimed champions of human rights and liberalism. The United States and the European Union have constantly been providing military, diplomatic, and financial aid to Israel.
The latter has emerged as the largest recipient of the US aid since its illegitimate inception. Moreover, the US government has vetoed multiple United Nations resolutions seeking to establish humanitarian peace in the region. U.S. President Donald Trump also reiterated his country’s support for Israel after his re-election. He also proposed a plan to relocate the native people of Gaza to the neighboring countries and occupy the region for the long term.
The Zionist state has intentionally targeted aid workers, mosques, churches, hospitals, schools, and other civilian infrastructure in violation of international law. In an unprecedented move, the Netanyahu administration is using starvation and hunger as a weapon of war against the innocent civilians of the Gaza Strip. Several heart-wrenching images of starved children from Gaza have emerged on social media during all this time. Amnesty International and the different international humanitarian agencies have condemned these Israeli policies and declared them a war crime.
Global Legal Responses and the Case at the ICJ
While most of the Muslim nations hesitated even to utter a single sentence against the ongoing Israeli war crimes and genocide in Israel, South Africa filed a case against the Zionist state in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023 under the 1948 Genocide Convention. This Convention, established to halt the recurrence of Holocaust like events, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” More than 10 countries, including Turkey, Ireland, Egypt, the Maldives, Chile, Belgium, and Mexico, have joined the case against Israel.
The petition demanded urgent actions to prevent further Israeli war crimes in Gaza. However, despite the presence of numerous evidence and reports by international human rights organizations, the ICJ failed to halt the genocide of innocent civilians of the Gaza Strip. The court was also commissioned to determine whether the Israeli Defense Forces were committing genocide in Gaza. Since 2023, the court has made no considerable decision against the Israeli war crimes.
Exposing Hypocrisy and Seeking Alternatives to Western Hegemony
The world, especially the Gazans, is waiting for the international community to stand against the atrocities and the war crimes of the IDF and the Netanyahu government. However, the Western world and its puppet Arab nations are constantly ignoring the plight of the innocent Palestinians. This has exposed the international organizations, the OIC, and the Western liberal values. The ICJ’s recent decision to postpone the hearing till January 2026 demonstrates its apathy towards the citizens of Gaza in particular and towards the citizens of Third World countries in particular.
Israeli war crimes and apartheid in Palestine date back to the former’s inception in 1948. Since then, the Zionist groups in Palestine have been occupying the properties of the native peoples. Israel’s history is replete with rapes, torture, and killing of innocent children and women in Palestinian territory. The Zionist leaders have always supported sexual assault by the Israeli Defense Forces.
However, the international community remains indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians. The ICJ’s postponement of the hearing till next year demonstrates its commitment to justice and peace in the world. This move has once again revealed that the US-backed unipolar liberal world order has failed. It has also exposed the reality of the so-called champions of human rights. The United States and other Western nations have always echoed their concerns about the Ukrainian people. However, their nonchalance to the plight of the Palestinians exposes their hypocrisy.
Although the Palestinians and their supporters around the world were hopeful about the ICJ, this is the time to realize that all the international institutions were made merely to prolong the US hegemony and serve the Western interests. It is improbable that the ICJ would declare Israeli operations as genocide. However, even if it does so, it would be too late, as hundreds more Palestinians would have been killed by then. Nonetheless, South Africa’s case against the ICJ has further exposed the Western world order and its institutions. It is the right time for third-world countries to look for an inclusive and egalitarian world order. BRICS provides the best alternative to the developing countries pursuing their ambition of following independent foreign policies and mutual development.
MAGA influencers want an Iran deal and for hawks to shut up
Trump is unlikely to pay any political price if he disregards the old guard’s unrealistic demands
By Ben Armbruster | Responsible Statecraft | May 19, 2025
Neocons and their allies in Washington, Israel, and beyond are making unrealistic demands about the outcome of U.S. talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. But President Trump has absolutely no reason to listen to them and should not take them seriously.
The anti-Iran deal campaign kicked into overdrive last week when Republicans on Capitol Hill sent a letter to the White House calling on Trump to refuse any agreement that doesn’t include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Every Republican senator except Rand Paul signed a letter to President Trump urging the administration to push for an end to Iran’s enrichment capacity,” Andrew Day, senior editor of the American Conservative, told RS. “They know that this demand is unacceptable to the Iranian regime and are clearly hoping to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic efforts.”
Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Sina Toossi called the letter’s demand “a poison pill.”
“Demanding zero enrichment, permanent restrictions, and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — after the U.S. already broke the 2015 deal — is not a negotiating position,” he told RS.
Meanwhile, other deal opponents say that Iran can be allowed to keep its program for civilian energy production purposes with the caveat that it cannot enrich its own uranium.
The good news for Trump though — and those who see an opportunity to box in Iran’s nuclear program and avoid war — is that this anti-Iran deal coalition has no constituency outside Washington and Israel, and Trump will pay very little to no political price if he just ignores them.
Take for instance a recent poll conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus in conjunction with the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program. That survey found that a large majority of Americans — 69% — favor “a negotiated agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful ends, with stringent monitoring” as opposed to military action. But perhaps more importantly for Trump’s political fortunes, 64% of Republicans surveyed — i.e. his base — agreed.
Opponents of diplomacy with Iran try to obfuscate this reality and muddy the waters. For example, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz — who’s been pushing for regime change in Iran for nearly two decades — promoted a poll last week finding that “76% of Americans say Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities should be destroyed.”
Of course there is one problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and thus no nuclear weapons facilities, a fact that the U.S. intelligence community routinely concludes.
But it’s not just the American people or the GOP base that support Trump making a deal with Iran. Some of the more high profile figures in the MAGA-America First world back him too.
“It’s called sanity,” Steve Bannon said last week, referring to the SSRS/UMaryland poll. Bannon, of course, served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first term and remains influential within his orbit and among his supporters.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who also has clout with Trump’s base, has been very vocal recently against going to war with Iran. “There is no wedge between the base and President Trump,” she said earlier this month. “The wedge is between Congress and the establishment Republicans that are undermining the president’s agenda.”
And conservative media star Tucker Carlson, who like Bannon, has close ties to Trump world and is influential with the president’s base, has been similarly calling out neocons and others who are trying to kill Trump’s diplomacy with Iran and push for war.
“Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country,” he said last month. “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Popular right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk has piled on as well. “[T]here are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it’d be easy. Just one strike in and out,” he said recently. “Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case?”
“President Trump has consolidated his power over the Republican Party to a remarkable degree and could certainly sign a good deal with Iran without suffering politically,” Day said. “The base still loves him, and lawmakers and conservative media are afraid of him. The elites would fall in line for fear of MAGA turning on them.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at NIAC, agrees. “Trump wouldn’t have been elected president twice if his foreign policy echoed the discredited views of the Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican party,” he said. “Trump can have a deal with Iran or he can be pushed into war by adopting rigid and inflexible demands — the vast majority of Americans want him to lead with diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, it appears increasingly unlikely that Democrats — most of whom supported President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal back in 2015 — will try to make much political hay with any agreement Trump makes with Tehran.
“This is not a time for politics on Iran,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in the House, said last week. “I support [Trump] trying to get a deal with Iran. I supported the Obama nuclear deal. How about we put the interest of our nation and peace above scoring political points at every moment?”
And what’s perhaps overlooked but maybe equally important: major regional powers like Saudi Arabia, who campaigned hard against Obama’s Iran deal, have changed their tune with Trump.
“Gulf leaders have been broadly supportive of the talks between the Trump administration and Iran because they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire of a regional escalation if they fail,” Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Middle East Eye last week. “That support doesn’t necessarily translate into success at the negotiating table but it’s a shift from the 2015 talks.”
Perhaps most importantly, Trump can get a deal with Iran that places strict limits on its nuclear program with incredibly intrusive verification mechanisms that will satisfy his stated goal of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, all without zero enrichment provisions or requiring Iran to dismantle its entire program.
“Not only will adopting a hardline ‘no enrichment’ position push Iran from the negotiating table entirely, it is not necessary for an effective agreement and would not fully address Iran’s proliferation risk,” the Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport wrote recently, adding that “dismantling the infrastructure does not erase the knowledge Iran has gained about uranium enrichment.”
In short, she concluded, the U.S. “can find the right combination of limits and monitoring to block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons while allowing Iran to retain a less risky level of uranium enrichment.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Iran Nuclear Negotiations Bring New, Suprising Developments
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2025
In the past several days, there have been surprising developments in the negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently, but not always, defined the goal of the negotiations as being limited to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He repeated that definition as recently as May 25, saying Iran must “permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons…They cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
But the message from his team has been contradictory. Then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the United States is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” Rubio said that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program, but by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67%, and no longer by enriching their own. On May 9, Witkoff told Breitbart News that “An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That’s our red line. No enrichment.”
But Iran has drawn the mirror image red line. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has placed a firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian repeated that red line ahead of the talks, insisting that “Iran has never sought, is not seeking, and will never seek nuclear weapons” but that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights.”
American insistence on ending Iran’s civilian enrichment program could put a quick end to the talks. Widening the negotiations to Iran’s missile program or to Iran’s relationship with its regional proxy groups could also jeopardize the talks.
But Trump raised that possibility on May 14 when he suggested that breaking off relations with proxy groups in the region must be part of any deal. Iran “must stop sponsoring terror,” he said, and “halt its bloody proxy wars.”
The contradictory statements emanating from the Trump administration appear to have been “because of a lack of decision on key strategic points,” Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on Iran, told me. And, indeed, on May 7, Trump said, “We haven’t made that decision yet.”
“As a result,” Parsi said, “the debate on these points is now, rather unhelpfully, taking place out in public.”
That the talks have progressed to a fourth meeting suggests, at this point, that the public crossing of these Iranian red lines may not be being repeated in the private meetings. Iran’s Foreign Minister hinted at that possibility when he identified one of the difficulties in the negotiations as being “contradictions both inside and outside the negotiating room.” Supporting this possibility, when Trump introduced Iran’s support of regional proxies into the discussion, Araghchi called the remark, not unproductive or unhelpful, but “deceitful.”
And Araghchi may know. Barak Ravid of Axios has now reported that, during the fourth round of talks, the United States presented Iran with a written proposal. The report says that, during the third round, Araghchi gave Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff a document with Iran’s proposals for a deal. The U.S. studied it and returned it to Iran with “questions and requests for clarifications.” Iran replied, the U.S. prepared a new proposal, and then presented it to Araghchi who has now brought it back to Tehran for consultations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian.
How far down the path to a settlement the proposal is is unknown. Araghchi said future negotiations now become more difficult. But he said that “despite the difficulty and frankness of the talks, very useful discussions were held.” He then said, “We can now say that both sides have a better understanding of each other’s positions.”
This major breakthrough may have been facilitated by another recent development: a subtle change in tone by Trump. Following a flurry of American threats, the fourth round of talks was postponed. Iranian officials said that [d]epending on the U.S. approach, the date of the next round of talks will be announced.”
Recently, that approach subtly changed. Previously, Donald Trump had formulated Iran’s choice as “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” But in his most recent remarks, which went largely unnoticed, Trump softened the consequence, saying only “If Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch…we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure, drive Iranian oil exports to zero.” Notably, bombing was replaced with sanctions.
On May 15, Trump again seemed to reject the risk of war:
“Because things like that get started and they get out of control. I’ve seen it over and over again. They go to war and things get out of control, and we’re not going to let that happen.”
In another surprise development, Iran may have facilitated negotiations with a creative and unexpected proposal.
There are now reports that Iran has suggested for consideration that they could join with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a nuclear enrichment consortium. Iran would continue to enrich uranium but accept a cap at the 3.67% enrichment required by a nuclear energy program. Saudi Arabia and UAE, who would gain access to Iran’s nuclear technology, would be shareholders and funders.
If true, the proposal would be based on a consortium idea first proposed by Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
Von Hippel told me that the idea was inspired by the URENCO enrichment consortium of Germany, the Netherlands and Britain and by the ABAAAC consortium of Brazil and Argentina.
The consortiums, he said, allow nuclear experts from each country to “visit each other’s facilities to assure themselves that the activities are peaceful.” He added that “decisions that might have proliferation implications are made by the [partner] governments.” Saudi Arabia’s, the Emirates’ and Iran’s watchful eyes would all help the International Atomic Energy Agency ensure that the program is peaceful.
Aside from the implications for the nuclear negotiations, this level of trust between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE was unthinkable only a very short time ago and testifies to the changes going on in the region and in the evolving Iran-Saudi Arabia relationship. That Iran would trust Saudi Arabia with access to its nuclear technology indicates that a region changing shift in the relationship is underway.
As Annelle Sheline, research fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, told me:
“The Iranians’ willingness to join a consortium with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to develop civilian nuclear energy demonstrates significantly improved relations between these countries. This sends a strong signal that Tehran as well as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi would prefer to prioritize cooperation over conflict.”
She said that all three countries have growing motivation for peace in the region. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman needs to avoid violent conflict to encourage the foreign investment and tourism needed to fuel his planned economic diversification. Mohammed bin Zayed needs economic security in the face of competition from Saudi Arabia to be a regional hub. Iran needs to encourage peace in the region because of the recent weakening of its own strategic position in the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran have recently been moving towards enhanced friendship both bilaterally and through multinational organizations.
Sheline expressed the hope to me that “Trump should take advantage of these circumstances to sign a nuclear deal with Iran and avoid unnecessary war.”
All of these developments, from the contradictory American messaging, to the until now unreported existence of a written proposal, to the subtle and little noticed change in Trump’s tone to the Iranian idea of a nuclear consortium with Saudi Arabia and UAE are shocking and new. They may present an opportunity to return to a nuclear agreement with Iran and to usher in a new hope for peace and friendly relations both between the U.S. and Iran and in the region. Hopefully, the two sides will seize this opportunity.
Montana Becomes First State to Ban Warrantless Data Purchases by Law Enforcement
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | May 18, 2025
Montana has taken a decisive leap where others have faltered, becoming the first state in the US to officially outlaw a widespread government surveillance tactic: buying up private data without a warrant.
With the passage of Senate Bill 282 (SB 282), lawmakers have directly confronted what has become a backdoor into people’s lives, commercial data brokers selling sensitive digital information to law enforcement agencies, sidestepping the need for judicial authorization.
This so-called “data broker loophole” has allowed government agencies across the country to acquire personal details they’d otherwise need a warrant to access.
Instead of presenting probable cause to a judge, agencies could simply purchase location histories and other metadata from third-party brokers who gather it from mobile apps.
These apps often track users’ movements down to the minute, creating comprehensive logs of their daily routines. Until now, that information was effectively up for grabs, and no warrant has been required.
Montana’s new law puts a clear end to that practice. Under SB 282, state and local government entities are now barred from purchasing several categories of digital data, including but not limited to: electronic communications and their contents, geolocation data, financial transaction records, pseudonymous identifiers, and other forms of sensitive personal information such as religious beliefs, health status, and biometric details.
Importantly, the legislation doesn’t eliminate access altogether, it restricts how that access is obtained.
Law enforcement in Montana must now secure a judge’s approval via a search warrant or meet other legal standards such as investigative subpoenas. Consent from the device’s owner is also still a permissible route.
What SB 282 achieves is a ban on the government using cash instead of cause to gather what should be protected digital traces.
This isn’t Montana’s first move to prioritize digital civil liberties.
The state has already passed a range of privacy-forward policies in recent years, including strong limitations on facial recognition, protections for genetic information, and a state constitutional amendment that explicitly shields digital data from unreasonable searches and seizures. SB 282 continues that trend, bolstering Montana’s reputation as a leader in privacy rights.
The structure of the new law aligns with the spirit of a federal bill, the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden.
In the vacuum left by federal inaction, states have begun crafting their own responses. Montana, despite its modest population, is now at the forefront of that movement.
Montana becomes first state to close the “data broker loophole” that allows law enforcement to purchase data without a warrant by enacting SB 282 which prohibits the government from using money to access certain types of sensitive digital information
Are US-Israel ‘special relations’ about to end?
By Murad Sadygzade | RT | May 19, 2025
Last week, US President Donald Trump embarked on his first official overseas tour since taking office, choosing to visit three key Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
This itinerary was both unexpected and, in many ways, unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who traditionally began their foreign policy engagements with visits to long-standing Western allies, Trump opted to prioritize America’s Arab partners, deliberately bypassing Israel – Washington’s principal strategic ally in the region. This marked the first time in decades that a sitting US president visiting the Middle East consciously excluded it from the agenda.
This decision signaled a potential recalibration of Washington’s priorities in the region. Relations between the Trump administration and the Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were already strained in the early stages – largely due to Israel’s growing intransigence on the Palestinian question and the increasing influence of far-right factions within the Israeli government. Faced with mounting frustration over Israel’s hardline policies, the White House appeared to pivot toward a more pragmatic, less confrontational, and economically advantageous partnership with the Gulf monarchies.
However, the rationale behind this shift extended beyond political calculation. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have long played a pivotal role in sustaining American influence in the Middle East – not only because of their strategic geography but also due to their substantial investments in the US economy and multi-billion-dollar arms contracts. For a business-minded president eager to showcase the profitability of foreign policy through economic deals, these nations represented ideal counterparts.
The lavish receptions afforded to Trump during his Gulf tour might have been dismissed as mere pageantry were it not for their deeper symbolic resonance. The true significance of the visit lay in what it revealed about broader geopolitical currents: namely, the transformation of the Gulf monarchies from regional players into increasingly assertive global actors.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are no longer content with being perceived as passive participants in American-led regional frameworks. Instead, they are positioning themselves as independent centers of power in an emerging multipolar world order. Their growing international stature stems from several interrelated factors.
First, these countries have embraced ambitious and forward-looking development strategies, investing heavily in infrastructure, clean energy transitions, technological innovation, and global finance. No longer simply hydrocarbon exporters, they are becoming hubs of digital transformation, international logistics, Islamic finance, and global policy discourse on issues ranging from security to sustainable development.
Second, the Gulf states have pioneered a distinctive model of governance that blends traditionalism with modernization. While maintaining deep-rooted commitments to Islamic and tribal values, they have achieved remarkable progress in building diversified and globally competitive economies. This synthesis has not only enabled them to thrive amid intensifying global competition but, in some respects, to outpace certain Western nations grappling with internal divisions and economic stagnation.
Equally noteworthy is the political resilience of these monarchies. Western narratives often portray them simplistically as ‘absolute monarchies,’ failing to appreciate the internal mechanisms of governance that underpin their stability. In reality, the political architecture of the Gulf is more accurately described as ‘sheikhism’ – a system rooted in consensus among tribal and familial elites, structured around a balance of obligations, reciprocal loyalties, and ongoing consultation. This model, which integrates Islamic principles such as shura (consultation) with practical statecraft, has proven remarkably adaptive and resilient.
In this context, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar can no longer be viewed merely as privileged US allies or energy suppliers. They are emerging as autonomous actors in global politics – capable of forging regional alliances, shaping international agendas across energy, media, and technology, and mediating in global conflicts. Their evolving role reflects not dependence on external security guarantees, but the outcome of deliberate, long-term strategies to consolidate sovereignty, enhance prestige, and assert influence in the 21st century.
Money above all: Trump’s deal-based diplomacy
President Donald Trump’s visit to the Gulf states was far more than his first foreign trip as head of state. It was a bold, highly symbolic debut of a new US foreign economic doctrine rooted in pragmatism, transactionalism, and strategic capitalism. Unlike previous administrations, which typically foregrounded diplomacy, security alliances, and value-based partnerships, Trump approached this tour as a high-stakes business deal. His mindset was that of a dealmaker, not a traditional statesman. The objective was clear: to restore America’s economic dominance by leveraging the vast wealth and strategic ambitions of the Middle East’s richest monarchies.
Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” found tangible expression in this tour. His mission was to bring back jobs, reindustrialize key sectors, boost the US high-tech ecosystem, and enhance national competitiveness – all fueled by a surge in foreign direct investment. In this pursuit, the oil-rich, capital-heavy Gulf monarchies – endowed with massive sovereign wealth funds and seeking greater global visibility – emerged as ideal partners.
In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed an unprecedented economic package worth over $600 billion, including the largest arms deal in US history – $142 billion covering missile defense systems, advanced aviation platforms, cybersecurity capabilities, and military-grade AI technologies. Equally significant was the launch of a new tech alliance: Saudi-based DataVolt committed $20 billion to build data centers and energy facilities in the US, while a consortium led by Nvidia, AMD, and Amazon Web Services will co-develop an AI innovation hub within the Kingdom. A $50 billion venture fund was also established to support US-based startups in renewable energy and cybersecurity.
In Qatar, the results were even more staggering: agreements totaling $1.2 trillion, the largest single-country deal package in US diplomatic history. Central to this was Qatar Airways’ order for 210 Boeing aircraft valued at $96 billion, making it the most lucrative deal ever for the American aerospace giant. Qatar also pledged tens of billions of dollars for joint ventures in quantum computing, smart energy networks, and STEM education programs for engineers and IT specialists in the US. In a provocative symbolic gesture, Qatar proposed gifting President Trump a custom-built Air Force One, sparking intense debate in the American media landscape.
In the United Arab Emirates, new agreements totaling $200 billion were signed – in addition to a previously negotiated $1.4 trillion package. Key components included the construction of an aluminum plant in Oklahoma, expansion of oil and gas infrastructure with US firms, and a landmark $100 billion commitment to American companies specializing in artificial intelligence over the next three years.
In total, Trump’s Gulf tour yielded over $2 trillion in contracts and investment pledges – an economic windfall of historic proportions. But beyond the numbers, the trip marked a fundamental redefinition of American foreign policy: from projecting power through military force and ideological alignment, to securing influence through economic penetration and transactional partnerships. Trump unveiled a new image of the US – not as a global policeman, but as a global entrepreneur. A nation that negotiates not with declarations, but with data, contracts, and employment metrics.
This new model resonated deeply with the Gulf monarchies themselves, which are undergoing profound transformations. Once reliant solely on oil exports, these states are rapidly evolving into tech-driven economies with ambitions to become global hubs of innovation, finance, and logistics. In Trump’s America, they found not just a security guarantor, but a strategic co-architect of a post-oil economic order – one where capital, innovation, and mutual profit outweigh traditional diplomatic protocol and ideological rhetoric.
Trump’s message was unambiguous: the era of foreign policy as charity is over. What now matters are mutual returns, strategic alignments, and economic gains. The Gulf states, driven by their own visions of modernization and diversification, eagerly embraced this shift. Together, they reimagined international relations not as a sphere of obligations, but as a marketplace of opportunities.
What about Israel?
One of the most significant – albeit unofficial – outcomes of Donald Trump’s Middle East tour could be discerned even before the journey began: the US President conspicuously bypassed Israel. This omission became all the more striking given that even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who had initially planned a visit to Tel Aviv, abruptly cancelled his trip at the last moment. The message did not go unnoticed in either Washington or Jerusalem: nearly all observers interpreted the move as a clear sign of a cooling relationship between the US and Israel – more precisely, between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The rift between the two leaders appears less personal than strategic, rooted in diverging visions of the region’s future. Tensions had been mounting for months. The first major flashpoint came when Trump unilaterally announced the withdrawal of American forces from operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, citing the group’s supposed commitment to halt attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes. The decision, made without prior consultation with Israel – which continues to endure daily rocket fire from the Houthis – dealt a blow not only to diplomatic norms but also to the foundational trust between Israel and its closest ally.
An even more sensitive issue has been the quiet resumption of US contacts with Iran. With Oman acting as mediator, Washington has been exploring the outlines of a possible new nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, Israel remains steadfast in its conviction that no negotiations with Tehran should occur until decisive military action is taken against its nuclear and military facilities – a show of force intended to compel concessions. Netanyahu failed to persuade Trump of this hardline approach, and the US president has increasingly charted his own, more flexible course.
Tensions have also sharpened over the future of Syria. Israel refuses to recognize the country’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, branding him a former al-Qaeda affiliate and a dangerous actor. Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory continue, the buffer zone in the Golan Heights remains under Israeli control, and the Druze population has formally been placed under Israeli protection. While Israel promotes the vision of a weak, decentralized Syria, Washington is embracing the opposite: al-Sharaa was invited to meet with Trump in Saudi Arabia, and following those talks, the US signaled its intent to lift sanctions on Damascus. Even more striking was the revelation that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE – previously restrained by US pressure – are now prepared to invest in Syria’s reconstruction, viewing it as both a stabilizing opportunity and a chance to expand their regional influence.
Israeli frustration has been further stoked by Washington’s evolving stance on the Palestinian issue. Despite Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza, Trump has increasingly expressed a desire – even a demand – for a resolution to the conflict. His Gaza reconstruction plan, unveiled in February, sent shockwaves through Washington: it proposed the complete depopulation of Palestinians from the enclave and the transformation of the territory into a luxury international resort zone under US control. Not only was this radical proposal never coordinated with Israel, but it also raised fundamental questions about the future of the US-Israel alliance.
To make matters more complex, credible reports have emerged that the US has been engaged in direct negotiations with Hamas, without informing Israel. The recent release of an American citizen, IDF soldier Idan Alexander, who was captured in October 2023, was reportedly achieved through these covert channels – of which the Israeli government only became aware through its own intelligence services.
Against this backdrop, speculation is growing that the White House is seriously considering formally recognizing an independent Palestinian state. Such a move would not be a mere diplomatic gesture – it would reshape the strategic architecture of the Middle East. Should Washington proceed down this path, Israel could find itself in strategic isolation, while the center of regional gravity shifts toward Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Türkiye – countries with which Trump is building pragmatic, mutually beneficial, and business-driven relations.
None of these states demand unconditional support from Washington, meddle in its internal politics, or leverage domestic crises for influence. More importantly, they offer Trump what he values most: investment, trade, strategic partnership based on reciprocal interest, and freedom from ideological constraints.
Thus, a new geopolitical reality is taking shape before our eyes. In this emerging landscape, Donald Trump appears less inclined to view Israel as an indispensable ally and more drawn to politically agile, economically potent, and regionally assertive actors across the Arab world – and Türkiye. If rumors of Palestinian state recognition prove true, it will mark the end of the long-standing era of “special relations” between the US and Israel and signal the dawn of a new chapter in American Middle East policy – one governed not by ideological loyalty, but by unambiguous political and economic rationality.
Murad Sadygzade is President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
Did ‘Israel’, US fight a proxy war with China in South Asia during the India-Pakistan escalation?
By F.M. Shakil | Al Mayadeen | May 19, 2025
In the recent standoff between India and Pakistan, “Israel” and the US significantly influenced the escalation and resolution of a fierce conflict between the two nuclear South Asian nations that resembles a contest between US-Israeli military equipment and Chinese-made war kits.
The former ignited the fires of war with its advanced military technology and, recognizing the potential for nuclear chaos, swiftly intervened to bring the situation to a close. The display of weaponry unmistakably indicates that Chinese-made missiles and fighter jets exhibit greater precision, target focus, speed, and reliability compared to their competitors, raising alarms for the US and its allies.
The PL-15E missiles, an active radar-guided long-range beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile produced by the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), have attracted interest following reports that Pakistan Air Force (PAF) J-10C fighters, equipped with PL-15E missiles, effectively downed three Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafale jets in a heated air confrontation. The engagement signifies a significant milestone, as it marks the inaugural instance of a Dassault Rafale, considered one of the top contenders among 4.5-generation fighters, being officially defeated in combat.
Israeli military supply to India
While the future implications of the fragile ceasefire are a perplexing issue for analysts in Pakistan, especially given the spontaneous violations of the truce that occurred within hours of its establishment, “Israel” has undoubtedly played a significant role in the recent military escalation by supplying arms, drones, and defense equipment to India.
“Israel” serves as a key supplier of military hardware to India, and its weaponry entered the battle as it transitioned to drone warfare. Israeli media openly acknowledged that India’s use of Israeli-made drones in its recent cross-border operations against Pakistan has captured international interest, not only for the tactical consequences but also for what it indicates was the strategic depth of India’s developing partnership with “Israel.”
Abdullah Khan, managing director of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) in Islamabad, told Al Mayadeen English that “Israel” provided its drone as well as the military doctrine it applied in Gaza to India. What India did in Pakistan, he said, was precisely what “Israel” has been doing in Gaza, and the same modus operandi was seen applied while targeting the religious institutions. “India has even borrowed the narrative lines from Israel, which has become a long-term challenge for Pakistan’s nuclear program as well”, Khan stated, adding that assessments are being made to determine its role in the recent standoff.
Israeli media, citing Dr. Oshrit Birvadker, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS) and an expert in India-Middle East relations, revealed that India’s recent incursion involved the deployment of Harop and Heron Mark-2 drones, illustrating how “Israel” plays a significant and growing role in India’s current military strategy, especially considering the escalations with Pakistan and the broader counterterrorism context.
Pakistan’s military claimed last week that it had hit 25 Indian drones known as Harop loitering drones produced by “Israel” Aerospace Industries (IAI) after they allegedly violated its airspace. The Harop is believed to be a cutting-edge advanced drone that has significantly expanded high-altitude surveillance and strike capability.
The media, citing the IAI’s website, say that loitering munitions are made to quickly respond to different situations, from short missions to long-range attacks, while also gathering real-time information and allowing for precise strikes. These features make them particularly effective in unpredictable and complex combat environments, including densely populated urban areas like Karachi and Lahore.
The drones reportedly targeted sites across major cities, including Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Sargodha, following Indian missile strikes a day earlier on what New Delhi described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Punjab. India made these strikes following an April terror attack that killed 24 tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
China-Pakistan defense collaboration
China has been enjoying close economic, defense, and geopolitical relations with Pakistan since long. Its stakes in Pakistan have been going deeper and deeper with the passage of time. On other hand, Beijing’s relations with India are marred by border disputes.
Zia Ul Haque Shamshi, a retired PAF Air Commodore, was quoted by the media as saying that the introduction of the J-35A fleet— a Chinese fifth-generation stealth fighter— signifies a pivotal shift in South Asia’s airpower landscape. This development was poised to provide Pakistan with a significant advantage, granting a 12- to 14-year lead in stealth fighter capabilities compared to India’s current air inventory.
He stated that Pakistan would acquire up to 40 units of the Chinese J-35A, which would place the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) on a swift path to surpass its longstanding rival, India, for more than a decade.
Last year, the South China Morning Post generated ripples within the Indian military circles by publishing a report that asserted Pakistan’s intention to procure approximately 40 J-35 jets, which are said to feature advanced stealth technology and next-generation avionics, from China.
In reaction to Beijing’s choice to supply Pakistan with fifth-generation stealth jets, Washington extended an offer to New Delhi in February for its advanced fighter jets, the F-35s. During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump indicated that this agreement would represent a significant enhancement in the defense relationship between the two nations, involving “many billions of dollars.”
In a recent interview with AFI, Indian defense analyst Ranesh Rajan suggested that India may resort to “panic purchasing” to counter the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) advantage over the Indian Air Force (IAF). This action, the defense analyst believes, could have substantial strategic implications for the entire South Asia region. In a historical context, he observed that the IAF reacted with urgency by purchasing 40 Mirage-2000s and 80 MiG-29s after Pakistan acquired F-16s from Washington in the eighties.
In March this year, Pakistan launched its second Hangor-class submarine, the PNS/M Shushuk, in a ceremony in Wuhan, China. The submarine with enhanced concealment capabilities in the deep ocean, is equipped with advanced stealth features and minimal acoustic signatures. In 2015, during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Islamabad, an agreement for eight vessels was inked between Pakistan’s Defense Ministry and China’s Shipbuilding and Offshore International Company.
Did the US instigate the flare-up?
Although the background information does not indicate direct US involvement, considering the broader geopolitical context and India’s relationship with the US, it is plausible that the US could have an indirect impact on the situation.
Abdullah Khan disclosed to Al Mayadeen English that the US initially observed from afar without intervening; it may have been assessing the credibility of India’s military strength for a potential confrontation with China in the future.
“India significantly let down its Western allies and partners, experiencing humiliation during the military confrontation with Pakistan. Despite attempts to execute strikes that could have escalated to a nuclear confrontation, it seems that was the moment the US intervened, compelling India to retreat,” he told Al Mayadeen English.
Khan stated that Pakistan had no plans to escalate further after successfully targeting at least 26 sensitive locations within Indian territory.
Trump should not threaten new sanctions when he talks to President Putin
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 19, 2025
The U.S. side has made various signals that it might impose massive new sanctions on Russia unless the war ends soon. This would be a huge mistake that would lock in the fighting for the rest of the year and leave Europe on the hook for a massive bill and political disruption that it cannot afford. Trump should not threaten Putin with sanctions when they talk on Monday 19 May.
In the run up to the Russia-Ukraine bilateral peace talks which finally took place in Istanbul last week, both the EU and the UK imposed new sanctions on Russia. On 9 May, as Russian commemorated victory Day, Britain imposed sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet and the EU followed suit with its 17th package of Russia sanctions on 14 May, the day before the Istanbul talks were due to start. Both the UK and EU have threatened further sanctions should Russia not agree a full and unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine and, with Zelensky, have actively urged the U.S. to follow suit, which it has not done, so far. However, the Americans have spoken increasingly about the possibility of massive new sanctions against Russia: this would be a huge mistake.
Sanctioning a country before peace talks have already started, or while they are still going on, is already a bad look. Very clearly, the Ukrainians, Europeans and British hope that new sanctions will apply such pressure on Russia that it agrees to terms that are more favourable to the Ukrainian side. I.e. that Ukraine does not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 commitment to adopt permanently neutral status. The western mainstream press has been carpet bombing their intellectually degraded readers with the latest press line that Ukraine should not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 text as a starting point for talks.
But there’s a problem. For this strategy to be effective, the sanctions have to work.
As I’ve pointed out before, sanctions against Russian energy have had limited impact, not just since 2022, but since 2014. Nothing about the glidepath of sanctions since February 2014 suggests that new sanctions will work now.
This latest round of UK and EU sanctions aimed to apply more pressure on enforcement of the G7 oil price cap of $60 which was first imposed in December 2022. Since the war started, that policy has failed.
Between 2021 and 2024, total volumes of Russian oil exported fell by just 0.2 million barrels per day, or 2.6%. After a bumper year for tax receipts in 2022 caused by Russian tumbling rouble and skyrocketing energy prices, Russia pulled in current account surpluses of $49.4bn and $62.3bn in 2023 and 2024. This was on the back of still strong goods exports of $425bn and $433bn respectively.
There are several reasons why the oil price cap didn’t work, the biggest being that Russia diverted 3 million barrels per day, around 39.5% of total oil exports to India (1.9 mbd), Türkiye (0.6 mbd) and China (0.5 mbd). Türkiye and India boosted exports of refined fuels to Europe providing a backdoor route for Russian oil to Europe. The second reason the oil price cap didn’t work is the near ten month time lag between war starting and the limit being imposed, which gave Russia space to readjust before punitive measure had been imposed. During this period, oil prices also dropped sharply from the high of $120 in the summer of 2022, to around $80 when the measure was imposed: the G7 missed the boat to impose maximum damage; this reinforces the point I make all the time that coalitions cannot act with speed and decisiveness.
Today, the Russian Urals oil price is below the $60 G7 cap meaning that any registered shipping company can transport it without penalty, which renders the British and European sanctions as pointless in any case.
Let’s be clear, western nations imposing sanctions against Russia that don’t work is not a new phenomena. As I have pointed out many times before, the vast majority (92%) of people that the UK has imposed assets freezes and travel bans upon have never held assets in the UK nor travelled here. For companies, the figure is just 23. The same, I am sure, is true of EU and U.S. sanctions, which cover largely the same cast list of characters and companies, as we all share and compare the same lists of possible designations. Financial sector sanctions prompted a massive readjustment of Russia’s financial sector. Energy and dual use sanctions drove self-sufficiency in technology production, through Rosnet, Gazprom and RosTec: i.e. these companies invested more in R&D on component production while sourcing components from alternative markets, in particular China.
At well over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far, Russia’s economy has proved remarkably robust and its key export sectors still find ways to deliver similar volumes across the world. At some point, I hope policy makers in London, Brussels and Washington will start to ask whether this policy is working. We long ago passed the point of diminishing marginal returns. I fear, however, they have their heads in the sand or, possibly another, darker, place.
So, coming back to Trump’s phone call with Putin on Monday 19 May you might ask yourself, ‘so what if he imposes a few more sanctions if they won’t work anyway?’
Putin would see the imposition of new U.S. sanctions as a complete 180, destroying any emerging trust he had in Trump or any belief in America’s stated intentions to end the war in Ukraine.
It is clear to me that further U.S. sanctions on Russia would kill stone dead any chance of a ceasefire in Ukraine at a time when Russia still has the upper hand. Russia has increased the pace of its advance since the Victory Day ceasefire and seems to be adding new blocks of red to the battle map each day. At the current rate of advance, even without a catastrophic Ukrainian collapse, it seems realistic to expect that Russia would paint out the remaining territory in Donetsk and Luhansk during the remainder of this year. In the process they would need to overcome the heavily fortified towns of Pokrovsk, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, in what would likely be brutal and attritional battles killing many thousands more on both sides.
Moreover, dragging out the war for longer would simply add to Europe’s liability to fund Ukraine’s war effort at a time when it is only ever going to lose. Ukraine is spending over 26% of GDP on defence in 2025 and 67.5% of its budget expenditure is on defence and security, leaving a budget black hole of $42bn that has to be filled. America under Trump isn’t going to fill this hole. And, as Ukraine is cut off from international lending markets, that black hole is being filled by Europe.
There is no money for this.
Europe has neither the political capital nor the funds to maintain a losing war in Ukraine at enormous expense without massive domestic political blowback in their own countries.
Notwithstanding the possibly understandable fear among European leaders of failing and being seen to fail in Ukraine, keeping the war going is at best, a gesture in cynical self-preservation, pushing their eventual political demise further down the track.
Unfortunately, we have been here so many times before. Right back to the Minsk II agreement, Ukraine has been pushing for ever more sanctions against Russia that only ever served to ramp up resentment and exacerbate the conflict. European leaders have invested too much in Zelensky and his self-serving demands aimed primarily at staying in power. He is quickly becoming the gun that shoots European elites in the head.
If Trump really wants to be seen as a peacemaker, he should avoid doing what every other western leader before him including Sleepy Joe did and resist the temptation to impose more sanctions. Instead, he should continue to press President Putin to continue to engage with bilateral peace talks that finally recommenced in Istanbul last week. He must also tell the Eurocrats and Zelensky that they must make compromises rather than plugging the same old failed prescriptions.
As The Federal Government Abandons The Climate Fantasy, New York Doubles Down
By Francis Menton – Manhattan Contrarian – May 13, 2025
The first 100+ days of the second Trump administration (it’s now actually 113 days) have seen a near total abandonment of the fantasy that this one country’s government can change the weather and “save the planet” by suppressing use of hydrocarbon fuels and impoverishing the people. Biden administration “climate” and energy policies amounting to thousands of pages in regulations and hundreds of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies to uneconomic energy projects have been swiftly reversed. Examples in just the past few weeks include:
-
The announcement by the Department of Energy just yesterday (May 12) of no fewer than 47 regulatory reversals, covering everything from ovens. to dehumidifiers, to clothes washers and driers, to shower heads, to dishwashers, and much, much more.
-
Rescission of hundreds of grants from the Department of Energy for so-called “green energy” projects.
-
Similar rescission of hundreds of grants from EPA, supposedly to fund “greenhouse gas reduction” and “climate justice” initiatives.
-
Commencement by EPA of a process to undo the “Endangerment Finding” — a regulatory action that underlies essentially all climate and energy regulation by that agency — and some 30 other climate and energy actions of EPA.
And these are just examples. There are many more.
At this point, you would think that the blue states might take the hint. As a blue state, you had thought that you were embarking on an energy “transition” with the full backing and support of the federal government, complete with its vast powers and its infinite checkbook. Sure, this was going to cost trillions of dollars; but it was almost all their money, not yours. If somehow it all didn’t work out, you were not going to be the main one on the hook.
Now, all that has changed. In the blink of an eye, there is no more support to be had from the infinite deep pocket. Not only is the federal government no longer your partner and financial sugar daddy, but it is even taking steps to obstruct and hinder your efforts.
So going forward, is there any point? As a lone blue state, you don’t remotely have the resources to expunge fossil fuels from your energy system on your own. Maybe, would it be best just to lie low for a few years and wait for the next friendly administration in Washington?
Well, if you are New York, that is not how you react. Your religious fervor is such that you are now prepared to proceed totally on your own to defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Even as the federal government is telling New York to take a hike, here are some of the latest antics on the climate front from New York officials and climate activists:
-
The State’s 2025-26 budget just got enacted on Friday, May 9. ESG Today reported excitedly on Monday (May 12) that the budget includes “over $1 billion investment in decarbonization.” Excerpt:
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the state’s 2025-2026 budget on Friday, which included more than $1 billion in climate change-focused investments, including funding to lower emissions from buildings and accelerate the rollout of electrified transportation. . . . Key climate-focused allocations in the new budget include $450 million targeting reductions in building emissions, including investments in energy-efficient retrofits and clean heating technologies like heat pumps, more than $200 million for thermal energy networks, $250 million to support electric school buses, fast-charging stations and a NYSERDA rebate program for installing EV charging stations, as well as $200 million for renewable energy expansion and grid modernization.
Nobody is impolite enough here to mention that $1 billion is chump change in the effort to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels. If you were serious about the effort, the number would be more like $1 trillion. But don’t worry, nobody reading this stuff has sufficient numeric competency to understand that.
-
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander — who is also a candidate for Mayor in the current election cycle — fancies himself a leader in the climate movement. Lander put out a statement on April 22 (“Earth Day”) setting forth his position:
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander decried threats from the Trump administration to dramatically roll back climate progress and stood with climate activists from New York Communities for Change, 350 NYC, and Fridays for Future to announce new actions by the Comptroller’s Office to reduce New York City’s emissions. . . . [T]o stand strong against federal rollbacks, Comptroller Lander is demanding more from the asset managers who manage funds for the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS), Teachers Retirement System (TRS), and Board of Education Retirement System (BERS).
-
In a prior statement on March 26, reported in Net Zero Investor, Lander vowed that the City “will not retreat one inch” on its climate program, despite the actions of the Trump administration.
-
Our local environmental activist groups brook no dissent from climate orthodoxy. On March 31, a group of four climate activist organizations sued the State government in an effort to force faster progress on greenhouse gas reduction goals. From New York Focus, March 31:
Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or dec, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.” It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or clcpa: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
So, there is plenty of bluster from local politicians and activists. But despite that, I can’t find a word as to how they plan to meet the greenhouse gas reduction and green energy mandates of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, now that all federal backing is withdrawn. As just one element, there was supposed to be 9000 MW of offshore wind built to replace on-shore fossil fuel power plants. Now the Trump administration is obstructing the offshore wind development. I haven’t been able to find a word from New York elected or energy officials on how they plan to transition the energy supply if they can’t build the offshore wind facilities.
So we move forward with our officials in a state of bluff and bluster and denial, and no plan of any kind to meet the impossible mandates of the Climate Act. We all know that this is doomed to failure, but it will likely be a couple of years before we see the failure unfold.
Red Sea debacle: How Yemeni resistance brought American war machine to a halt
By Kit Klarenberg | Press TV | May 18, 2025
On May 12, the New York Times published a forensic autopsy of the failure of the Trump administration’s renewed hostilities against the Ansarullah-led Yemeni military in the Red Sea.
The probe teemed with extraordinary disclosures, spelling out in stark detail how the combined air and naval effort – launched with enormous fanfare and much bombastic rhetoric from US officials – was an even greater debacle, and devastating defeat, for the Empire than hitherto thought.
The scale of the cataclysm may explain Washington’s sudden determination to reach a negotiated settlement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Perhaps the most striking revelation is that Trump’s blitzkrieg against Yemen was initially planned to be a long-term, large-scale engagement, culminating in a ground invasion using proxy forces.
General Michael Kurilla, Commander of the Pentagon’s Central Command, which covers Central, South and West Asia, had been in favor of all-out war with the Ansarullah resistance movement ever since its righteous anti-genocide Red Sea blockade began in late 2023.
Reportedly, though, Joe Biden was wary that a “forceful campaign” would elevate them “on the global stage.”
With Trump’s re-election, “Kurilla had a new commander in chief” and an opportunity to up the ante against Ansarullah significantly. He pitched an eight-to-10-month effort, starting with a saturation bombing of Yemen’s air defense systems, before a wave of targeted assassinations of movement leaders, directly inspired by Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah’s senior members in September 2024.
Kurilla’s grand operation was eagerly supported by elements of the Trump administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
Saudi officials were also on board, providing Washington with a target list of 12 Ansarullah leaders “whose deaths, they said, would cripple the movement.”
However, the UAE, which had in concert with Riyadh relentlessly bombed Yemen 2015 – 2023 to no tangible result, “was not so sure.” Several members of Trump’s administration were also skeptical of the plan’s prospects and worried a protracted attack on Sana’a would drain valuable, finite resources, including the president himself.
Yet, after concerted lobbying, Trump “signed off on part of General Kurilla’s plan – airstrikes against Houthi air defense systems and strikes against the group’s leaders.”
So it was on March 15, US fighter jets began battering Yemen anew, while a carrier force led by the USS Harry S. Truman thrust into the Red Sea.
White House officials boasted the onslaught would continue “indefinitely”, while Trump bragged that Ansarillah would be “decimated” via “overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective.”
Some degradation
In reality, The New York Times suggests Trump privately made clear he wanted Ansarullah bombed “into submission” within just 30 days, and failure in this objective would mean the operation’s termination.
By the 31st day of hostilities, the US president “demanded a progress report.” As the outlet records, “the results were not there,” which is quite an understatement. The US “had not even established air superiority” over Ansarullah, while the resistance group continued “shooting at vessels and drones, fortifying their bunkers and moving weapons stockpiles underground.”
Moreover, during those first 30 days, Yemeni military “shot down seven American MQ-9 drones” costing around $30 million each, “hampering Central Command’s ability to track and strike back. Meanwhile, several American F-16s and an F-35 stealth fighter jet “were nearly struck by Houthi air defenses, making real the possibility of American casualties.”
All along, too, the US burned through weapons and munitions at a rate of about $1 billion in the first month alone:
“The cost of the operation was staggering. The Pentagon had deployed two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 bombers and fighter jets, as well as Patriot and THAAD air defenses… So many precision munitions were being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners were growing increasingly concerned about overall stocks and the implications for any situation in which the US might have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.”
Concerned, “the White House began pressing Central Command for metrics of success in the campaign.”
In a bitter irony, Pentagon officials “responded by providing data showing the number of munitions dropped” to prove they were achieving their goals. They also claimed, without evidence, to have hit over 1,000 military targets, while killing “more than a dozen senior Houthi leaders.”
US intelligence was unconvinced, acknowledging there was “some degradation” of the Ansarullah-led military, but “the group could easily reconstitute” regardless.
As a result, “senior national security officials” began investigating “pathways” for either withdrawing from the theatre with minimal embarrassment or keeping the fiasco going using local proxy forces.
One option was to “ramp up operations for up to another month and then conduct ‘freedom of navigation’ exercises in the Red Sea using two carrier groups, the Carl Vinson and the Truman.” If AnsarAllah did not fire on the ships, “the Trump administration would declare victory.”
Another option was to extend the campaign, giving forces under the control of the Riyadh-based Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council “time to restart a drive to push the Houthis out of the capital and key ports” in a ground assault.
The plan was hatched despite prior Saudi-led invasions of Yemen invariably ending in total disaster. This may account for why talks between Hegseth and Saudi and UAE officials in late April “to come up with a sustainable way forward… they could present to the President” came to nothing.
Great ability
As luck would have it, right when Hegseth’s last-ditch efforts to breathe life into the collapsing effort were floundering, Trump’s West Asia envoy Steve Witkoff was in Oman, engaged in nuclear talks with Iran.
Officials there separately suggested a “perfect offramp” for Washington in its war with Ansarullah. The US “would halt the bombing campaign and the militia would no longer target American ships in the Red Sea, but without any agreement to stop disrupting shipping that the group deemed helpful to Israel.”
Well-publicised fiascoes around this time, such as the loss overboard of an F/A-18 Super Hornet, costing $67 million, due to the USS Harry S. Truman conducting evasive maneuvers to avoid an Ansarullah drone and missile attack, further depleted White House enthusiasm for the operation.
According to The New York Times, “Trump had had enough”. He duly accepted the Omani proposal, and on May 5th, CentCom “received a sudden order… to ‘pause’ offensive operations” in the Red Sea.
That a ballistic missile fired by the Yemeni military evaded the Zionist entity’s air defenses and struck Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion International Airport the previous day likely provided further incentive to halt hostilities.
So it was on May 6, Trump declared victory against Ansarullah, claiming the resistance group had “capitulated”, and “don’t want to fight any more”. Nonetheless, the president expressed clear admiration for God’s Partisans, indicating he placed a high degree of trust in Ansarullah’s assurances that US ships would no longer be in their redoubtable crosshairs:
“We hit them very hard and they had a great ability to withstand punishment. You could say there was a lot of bravery there. They gave us their word that they wouldn’t be shooting at ships anymore, and we honor that.”
Per The New York Times, Trump’s “sudden declaration of victory… demonstrates how some members of the president’s national security team underestimated a group known for its resilience.”
But more deeply, it surely reflects how the bruising, costly experience was a blunt-force education in the glaring deficiencies of US military power, and the Empire’s fatal vulnerability in the event of all-out war against an adversary actually able to defend itself. This could account for the Trump administration’s sudden determination to finalize a nuclear deal with Tehran.
It must not be forgotten that before even taking office, Trump and his cabinet openly planned for a significant escalation of belligerence against the Islamic Republic.
Among other things, they boasted of drawing up plans to “bankrupt Iran” via “maximum pressure”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has long called for tightening already devastating sanctions on Tehran, was a key advocate for this approach, and eagerly supported by Mike Waltz, among others.
At an event convened by NATO adjunct the Atlantic Council in October 2024, Waltz bragged about how the president had previously almost destroyed the Islamic Republic’s currency, and looked ahead to inflicting even more severe damage on the country following Trump’s inauguration.
Fast forward to today, though, and such rhetoric has vanished from mainstream Western political discourse. It appears Trump and his team have not only jettisoned their previously stated ambitions towards Iran but are determined to avoid war.
Moreover, just as the Zionist entity was not consulted before Washington struck a ceasefire with Ansarullah, Tel Aviv has been completely frozen out of nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran, and if an agreement does result at last, it will not take into account Israel’s bellicose position towards the Islamic Republic.
Just as the Cuban Missile Crisis transformed Cold warrior John F. Kennedy into a dove, Trump’s experience in the Red Sea may well have precipitated a seismic shift in his administration’s foreign policy.
Featured Video
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
- Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
- New US shipment of 6,500 tons of military aid arrives in Israel
- Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator
- Zelensky’s favorite drone company at center of Ukrainian corruption alert
- The Broken Contract
- US CENTCOM’s Request for Dark Eagle Missiles Shows Shortage of Weapons and Limited Options
- Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
- A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
- US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 