Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Strikes on Iran Reckless Breach of Sovereignty – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 22.06.2025

MOSCOW – The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as a reckless move that violates the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, international law and the UN Charter.

“The reckless decision to bomb the territory of a sovereign state, whatever the arguments, runs counter to international law, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council Resolution,” the ministry said.

It is of particular concern that the attack was carried out by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the ministry said, adding that the UN’s core body had to interfere.

“The UN Security Council should naturally take action. Confrontational behavior of the US and Israel has to be rejected collectively,” the statement read.

“We call for an end of aggression and urge efforts that will create conditions for a return to a political and diplomatic path,” the statement said.

The ministry also called on Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report impartially on the Iran attacks at the UN atomic agency’s board of governors’ meeting on Monday.

June 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘The US Betrayed Diplomacy’ – Iran’s FM Araghchi

Sputnik – 22.06.2025

Iran will have to respond to US attacks against Iranian nuclear sites, and is going to do so for as long as needed, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

The United States have “betrayed diplomacy”, Araghchi said at a press conference held in Istanbul on June 22, adding that Iran now has the right to defend itself in accordance with the UN Charter.

“The US government bears full responsibility for the serious consequences of this aggression,” Araghchi said.

In the wake of the US strikes, Iran has fewer reasons to trust the West, Tehran no longer understands who it should negotiate with, he pointed out.

According Araghchi, Iran is receiving messages from the US through various channels, and if necessary, it will respond through intermediaries.

Iran now calls upon the International Atomic Energy Agency to fulfill its legal duties in response to the dangerous attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities, Araghchi stated.

The UN and the IAEA must respond to the clear violation of international law by the United States, he said, further insisting that the UN Security Council should hold an emergency meeting and condemn the US attack.

Araghchi also said that he is going to Moscow to have “serious consultations” with President Putin on Monday, June 23.

June 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Clash of Two World Orders: Fordow Is the Excuse, Sovereignty the Target

By Peiman Salehi | Aletho News | June 22, 2025

Hours after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a direct military strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, the world stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice. This unprecedented attack, occurring in the early hours of last night, marks a significant escalation in the confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and has once again ignited fears of a broader regional—if not global—conflict.

According to Iranian state media, the American attack targeted the entrance of the Fordow nuclear enrichment site, located tens of meters underground. Despite the dramatic nature of the strike, the damage appears to be minimal. Iranian officials have called the assault a “symbolic operation” with limited strategic impact. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is expected to issue a full technical statement, but preliminary reports indicate that key centrifuges had already been removed from the Fordow and Natanz sites prior to the attack. The Iranian government further emphasized that the deep-underground design of these facilities, the result of years of indigenous scientific expertise, had neutralized any attempt to deliver a crippling blow.

This act of aggression is not only a military miscalculation but a profound political one. The U.S. administration, under Trump’s leadership, appears to have lost its strategic bearings. By resorting to force, Washington has exposed its frustration and strategic deadlock. What this attack truly represents is a failure of diplomacy, a betrayal of international norms, and a dangerous gamble rooted in outdated imperial thinking. Trump, increasingly beholden to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has allowed the Zionist regime’s narrow interests to dictate a course that risks global war. The world is now witnessing how the ambitions of a declining empire can drag the international system into chaos.

The media landscape surrounding the strike further reveals a coordinated attempt to shape the narrative. Western outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have underreported or dismissed Iran’s defensive capabilities and the limited damage incurred. In contrast, resistance-aligned media such as Al Mayadeen, Press TV, and Tasnim News have provided footage, satellite analysis, and expert interviews, revealing the superficial nature of the attack. Israeli media, which initially broadcast images from Tel Aviv and Haifa, has since restricted coverage, a move analysts interpret as an attempt to hide the psychological and infrastructural damage inflicted by previous Iranian missile strikes.

More crucially, this moment exposes the deeper ideological battle at play. Washington and Tel Aviv are not merely targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—they are targeting the very notion of Iranian sovereignty, independence, and civilizational identity. For decades, the U.S. has tolerated or ignored nuclear weapons held by regimes like Israel, India, and others. Yet Iran, which has consistently emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and whose Supreme Leader has issued religious rulings against weapons of mass destruction, remains the subject of relentless pressure and threats.

This double standard reveals the real motive: not nonproliferation, but domination. Iran stands as a civilizational alternative to the liberal hegemony of the West, especially in the post-Cold War era. Its resistance model has inspired popular movements across West Asia and beyond. And today, despite the brutality of sanctions, sabotage, and assassination campaigns, Iran remains defiant—stronger, more resilient, and more unified.

Indeed, one of the unintended consequences of the American-Israeli aggression is the strengthening of Iran’s internal unity. Where once some questioned Iran’s regional alliances, now many recognize their strategic depth. It is clear why Iran built partnerships with Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and other resistance groups: to keep the battle outside its borders and to prepare for precisely this moment. Iran has yet to request support from these allies, has not activated its naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz, and has not called on China, Russia, or Pakistan for direct intervention. Yet all these options remain on the table. This calculated restraint underscores Iran’s confidence and its desire to prove that it can confront Israel independently.

However, should the U.S. persist in its aggression, it is likely that Iran’s allies will respond. A wider conflict could pull in China and Russia, both of whom have signaled support for Iran’s right to defend itself. Pakistan has openly declared that it will not stand idly by if Iran is attacked. What we are witnessing may very well be the beginning of a war that accelerates the decline of American unipolarity and ushers in a truly multipolar world.

This is not merely a battle between two states; it is a confrontation between two visions of world order. One rooted in hegemony and coercion. The other, in resistance, dignity, and sovereignty. And tonight, from the heart of Tehran, the voice of that resistance is being heard loud and clear.

June 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Perception vs reality: What the Israel–Iran war actually reveals

Myth-making as strategy

By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | June 21, 2025

Since 13 June, “Operation Rising Lion” has dominated headlines, framed by a deluge of western media portraying Iran as days from building a nuclear bomb. In response, Israel unleashed waves of airstrikes on Iranian territory, targeting military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likened it to the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor – a strike of necessity to prevent annihilation.

But beneath the familiar tropes of “pre-emptive defense” lies an unmistakable imperial calculus. Over 200 Israeli aircraft participated in the opening barrage, with deep-penetration strikes and cyber warfare. Iranian air defense and radar installations were among the first to be hit. Mossad and allied forces used proxy agents to ignite internal sabotage, including drone and car bomb attacks in major cities.

This was not a “surgical strike” to stop a bomb. It was a declaration of war – a bid to decapitate the Islamic Republic.

Iran: Weak ‘regime’ or resilient state?

Western assessments insist Iran is tottering: its economy hollowed out by sanctions, its population seething, its leadership fractured. But these are fantasies. What has emerged since Israel’s 13 June assault is not a ‘regime’ in collapse, but a state adapting under fire – around which the majority of Iranians, irrespective of political affiliations, have united.

Contrary to the western narrative, the strikes that eliminated senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists barely dented Iran’s strategic posture. Within hours, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reaffirmed Artesh (conventional military) control over national defense, elevating new commanders and activating pre-planned strike protocols. This signaled a transfer of initiative from cautious IRGC veterans – many shaped by the traumas of the 1980–1988 war with Iraq – to a more hawkish generation, willing to directly strike Israel.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks on 13, 14, and 15 June – the third instalment of Operation True Promise – struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and three Israeli military bases. Online observers admired how quickly the Iranian military pivoted to war footing despite the assassination of high-ranking officers. One noted:

“I don’t think the American or Israeli military could have taken the losses of so many senior commanders and still struck back.”

Did Israel achieve air superiority?

Initial reports claimed Israeli dominance of Iranian airspace, based largely on footage of Israeli jets evading response and striking decoy targets. Yet after a 12-hour “silence,” Iranian air defense (AD) systems re-engaged with full force. The delay has been interpreted as either the effect of cyber warfare or a deliberate “rope-a-dope” strategy: feign weakness, draw in the enemy, make him over-confident, counterstrike.

Iran lost facilities it expected to lose, such as the outdated IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. Underground sites with IR-6 [SM1] centrifuges at Fordow were unaffected. Mobile and fixed AD units resumed operations by nightfall, and there are unconfirmed reports of Israeli aircraft downed in later attempts to breach Iranian skies.

Israeli media touted “air superiority,” but most confirmed strikes targeted decoys. As military analyst Mike Mihajlovic explained, “more than three-quarters of the videos circulating are actually hits on the decoys.”

The illusion of dominance, broadcast by Tel Aviv, is cracking.

War by terror

Unable to sustain large-scale aerial assaults, Israel shifted tactics. Standoff missile strikes from Iraqi airspace waned. Instead, Mossad and its internal assets launched FPV drone attacks, car bombings, and anti-tank guided missile strikes. Five car bombs exploded in Tehran on 15 June alone. Civilian sites – hospitals, dormitories, and residential buildings – were hit.

These are not military operations. They are acts of terror. Still, the west echoes Tel Aviv’s narrative. The BBC and others describe these incidents as “strikes,” implying aerial precision, rather than the car bombings they are. This deliberate linguistic obfuscation dehumanizes Iranians while sanitizing Israeli aggression. Yet, this has galvanized Iranians and united them.

National unity reforged

Much like the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion, Tel Aviv misread Iran’s internal contradictions as signs of collapse. Yet from 13 June onward, Iranians from across the political spectrum – including long-time dissidents – have rallied behind the state.

Political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam questioned:

“Which opposition figure has spoken and written as much as I have against this regime? But how can I join the enemy in this situation? Was it right for the MEK to join Saddam?”

Former political prisoner Ali Gholizadeh added, “Despite all my criticisms of the government, I stand fully behind the commander-in-chief of the Iranian Defense Forces and [Armed] Forces in defending the homeland.”

Even reformist voices, once critical of Iran’s nuclear policy, now demand a bomb. Journalist and editor Ali Nazary says, “Iran must acquire a nuclear bomb as soon as possible. Conducting a nuclear test is the biggest deterrent.”

On Iranian social media, images of civilians killed in Israeli attacks have gone viral. As of 15 June, 224 Iranians – 90 percent civilians – were reported killed, with over 1,200 injured.

Crumbling illusions

The occupation state claims it destroyed 120 missile launchers and 200 AD units. But Iranian units continue to fire in visible clusters – indicating low attrition and high confidence. Independent analysts mock Israeli claims as propaganda. Patarames, a known military observer, posted:

“IRGC missile crews still feel so confident and safe that their launchers are firing in clusters. So much for Israeli air superiority.”

In truth, Israeli AD systems are being degraded. Iranian missiles increasingly strike with little interception. The myth of omnipotent Israeli defense is unraveling.

Meanwhile, Tehran may be preparing its exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – according to a statement made by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei – and expelling  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors. Parliament is fast-tracking bills. Crowds chant for a nuclear test. The west’s double standards on Israel’s arsenal and Tehran’s right to self-defense are fueling a shift in national strategy.

Global reactions: Hypocrisy laid bare

Washington’s rhetoric mirrors past duplicity. US President Donald Trump – who unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term – posted on X triumphantly:

“I gave Iran 60 days to make a deal. Israel attacked on day 61.”

G7 governments mumble about de-escalation, but offer no condemnation of Israeli aggression. The so-called “rules-based order” is silent as civilians die.

Iranians are not surprised. In 2001, they condemned the 11 September attacks and supported the US so-called War on Terror. Today, they watch the same west excuse terrorism against them. Trust is gone. Nationalism is surging.

Israel’s strategic gamble is backfiring. Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza and is targeting occupation soldiers in greater numbers. Hezbollah watches closely. Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces are coordinating with Tehran. If Iraq’s resistance factions activate, US forces could be drawn in.

Meanwhile, Tel Aviv’s own population is rattled. Social media posts from Israelis hiding in bunkers – “they’re turning us into Gaza” – reflect growing fear. The psychological war, waged by Iran, is winning.

Across the Global South, sympathy lies with Tehran. As Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone put it:

“Imagine being so evil and reviled that people love watching you get hit.”

A war of narratives and attrition

“Operation Rising Lion” was meant to decapitate Iran, destroy its nuclear program, and shatter its morale. Instead, it has united a fragmented polity, discredited western media, and exposed the hollowness of Israeli deterrence.

Iran’s leadership has hardened. Its people are defiant. Its enemies are scrambling to control the story.

This is not just a war of missiles. It is a war of narratives, sovereignty, and historical memory. The Axis of Resistance understands this. Tel Aviv, it seems, does not.

The Persian lion is not in a good mood.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

MenQuadfi Approval and the Pyramid Scheme of Vaccine Safety

This is how the game is played

Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | June 15, 2025

Recently, FDA shamefully approved Sanofi’s MenQuadfi (a meningococcal vaccine) to be injected into infants 6 weeks to 2 years old based on a trial that compared it to Menveo (another meningococcal vaccine). In the trial, 5.3% of infants receiving MenQuadfi and 3.6% of infants receiving Menveo had a serious adverse reaction (which means something very serious, see the FDA definition). But because these rates were “similar,” this product was deemed “safe” by FDA—because it assumes Menveo is also “safe.”

But Menveo was licensed based on a trial in which Menactra (among other vaccines) was used as a control; and Menactra was licensed based on a trial in which Menomune was used as a control; and Menomune was not licensed based on a proper placebo-controlled trial either. In fact—and this is mind-twisting—the package insert for Menomune lists the clinical trial for Menactra (in which Menomune itself was used as the control) as the basis for its safety. I couldn’t even dream of making this stuff up.

This provides a good example of the vaccine safety pyramid scheme: Menomune was licensed without a proper placebo-controlled trial and was then used as the control to license Menactra; Menactra is then used as the control to license Menveo; and then Menveo is used as the control to license MenQuadfi. And then we get a trial with 5.3% and 3.6% of infants suffering serious adverse reactions and FDA grants licensure.

What makes this even more troubling is that because FDA officials must know these numbers are highly concerning, they have Sanofi conduct a case-by-case review of each serious adverse event. If FDA were confident the control was safe, it would just rely on a statistical comparison between the vaccine being evaluated and the control. But since FDA officials must know Menveo’s safety is unknown (because it was licensed in a trial with a defective control), they ask Sanofi (the company seeking to get approval and profit from this product) to explain away each serious adverse event. And the Sanofi-paid researchers do exactly that in their write-ups to FDA about each serious adverse event.

And when FDA gets these write-ups explaining away each serious adverse event as “unrelated” to MenQuadfi, what does FDA do? The FDA officials reviewing them dutifully agree. What else would they do? Admit that Menveo, used as the control, and which they licensed based on nonsense data, has been harming children? That it is causing 3.6% of children—or even a fraction of that—to have a serious adverse event? If FDA officials do that, the house of cards would start to collapse. It would become clear Menveo wasn’t properly licensed (which it wasn’t), and that Menactra wasn’t properly licensed (which it wasn’t), and the same for Menomune.

FDA’s conflict and bias are dangerous. Letting Sanofi decide if its own product caused harm is beyond dangerous. This entire pyramid scheme, without a valid baseline of safety permitting a statistical comparison, requires injecting a new layer of biased assumptions with each additional licensure.

At this point, the safety of these products is based on dogma and assumptions. FDA has its reputation and any remaining trust to lose—and pharma its billions in profits—if they actually evaluated these products using a true safety comparator. It would reveal the true safety profile of these products (which the reliable data shows will likely be terrifying). Of course, the children whose injuries could be averted by conducting actual safety trials would benefit, but they are not really part of the equation.

References:

MenQuadfi Package Insert

Menveo Package Insert

Menactra Package Insert

Menomune Package Insert

Serious Adverse Event FDA Definition

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Obama Wants Filters Not Freedom

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 21, 2025

Barack Obama’s recent appearance at The Connecticut Forum once again revealed a troubling truth: the political establishment is becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of government-managed speech.

In an extended conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, the former president signaled that his tolerance for open discourse ends where his ideological preferences begin.

Amid warnings about the spread of “propaganda” and falsehoods online, Obama floated the notion of imposing “government regulatory constraints” on digital platforms.

His rationale? To counter business models that, in his opinion, elevate “the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence.”

But it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see what’s really being proposed: a top-down mechanism to filter speech based on government-approved standards of truth.

This wasn’t framed as a direct assault on the First Amendment, of course. Obama was careful to qualify that such regulations would remain “consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s little comfort when the very premise involves the government determining which voices deserve a platform. Once the state takes a role in deciding what is true or acceptable, the line between moderation and censorship evaporates.

Obama’s remarks included a reference to a saying he alleges is attributed to Russian intelligence and later adopted by Steve Bannon: “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop…that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

This, he argued, is the tactic used by bad actors to disorient the public. What he failed to acknowledge is that the antidote to this isn’t more control, but more speech. Free people, given access to a full spectrum of views, are capable of discerning fact from fiction without government supervision.

The real danger isn’t “too much speech.” It’s the increasing desire to place speech under bureaucratic management.

Obama’s suggestion that some speech is too “hateful” or “dangerous” to be left unchecked invites a future where those in power decide what the public is allowed to hear, a vision completely incompatible with a free society.

And we’ve already seen how that plays out.

The Biden administration made repeated efforts to coerce tech companies into censoring dissenting views during the COVID-19 pandemic, flagging opinions that contradicted official narratives even when they later turned out to be correct.

The justification was always the same: protecting people from harm. But in practice, it meant silencing lawful speech and punishing disagreement.

Obama’s proposal echoes that same authoritarian instinct.

The promise of safeguarding the public from falsehoods is used to justify speech controls that would ultimately chill dissent and punish deviation from dominant narratives. And who decides which views are “too hateful” or “too polarizing”? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Tech executives? The moment that power is granted, it will inevitably be abused.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US presses Iran nuclear threat narrative despite IAEA’s denial

RT | June 21, 2025

US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea stated at a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear bomb, despite IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi recently saying the agency found no evidence that Tehran is pursuing such a weapon. Analysts say Washington’s narrative resembles past efforts to justify regime change in the Middle East.

Last week, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, citing an imminent threat that Tehran would make a nuclear weapon. Iran, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful, retaliated with strikes on Israeli targets. The Israeli assault came days after the IAEA reported that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% – which is short of the 90% required for weapons.

However, since the strikes started, Grossi has claimed that his agency had no proof that Iran was actually trying to build a nuclear weapon, stressing that enriched uranium alone does not constitute a bomb. US intelligence agencies also maintain there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear arms. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump has claimed Iran was “very close” to acquiring a bomb and warned the US could intervene if it doesn’t agree to scrap its nuclear program.

Shea declared the US “continues to stand with Israel” and backs its campaign against “Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” She insisted that the US “can no longer ignore that Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” lacking only a decision from its supreme leader.

Some analysts say US rhetoric on Iran echoes President George W. Bush’s 2002 claims about Iraqi WMDs, which led to a US invasion despite no stockpiles being found. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told journalist Tucker Carlson this week that the entire operation against Iran “that came out of nowhere” is in fact an attempt by the US “deep state” to orchestrate regime change in Iran.

“We have a system that has its own national security policy… that is the fight we have to take on today,” Bannon stated, suggesting that Trump should not succumb to pressure from US war hawks and involve American military in the conflict. Tucker Carlson also said that while he supports Trump, he fears the consequences if he yields to pressure and joins the Israeli strikes. “I think we’re gonna see the end of the American empire,” he warned, criticizing Washington hawks for dragging the country into another war.

Journalist Steve Coll told NPR this week that using US intelligence to justify strikes mirrors the Iraq war narrative. He noted that while Israel calls its attacks preemptive, the objective remains vague.

“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has spoken of regime change and urged Iranians to rise up – just like George H.W. Bush did in 1991 with Iraq,” Coll said. “There’s no sign of a planned invasion, yet talk of toppling Iran’s government persists.”

Other observers, including former US President Bill Clinton, suggested Israel’s “undeclared war” on Iran may also be driven by another goal – Netanyahu’s desire to stay in power. Shea made a notable slip during her UN remarks, initially blaming Israel for “chaos and terror” in the Middle East before correcting herself to attribute it to Iran. RT’s Rick Sanchez and journalist Chay Bowes called her words a “Freudian slip” while discussing the situation in an episode of Sanchez Effect on Friday, with Sanchez adding, “She accidentally said the truth out loud.”

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s risky war on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’

By Anatol Lieven | Responsible Statecraft | June 16, 2025

The European Union’s latest moves (as part of its 17th package of sanctions against Russia declared in May) to target much more intensively Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and other vessels illustrate the danger that, as long as the Ukraine war continues, so will the risk of an incident that will draw NATO and the EU into a direct military clash with Russia.

The EU sanctions involve bans on access to the ports, national waters and maritime economic zones of EU states. Ships that enter these waters risk seizure and confiscation. It does not appear that Washington was consulted about this decision, despite the obvious risks to the U.S.

As part of this strategy, on May 15, an Estonian patrol boat attempted to stop and inspect a tanker in the Gulf of Finland. Russia sent up a fighter jet that flew over the Estonian vessel (allegedly briefly trespassing into Estonian waters), and the Estonians backed off — this time. In January, the German navy seized a Panamanian-flagged tanker, the Eventin, in the Baltic after its engines failed and it drifted into German territorial waters.

Sweden has now announced that starting on July 1 its navy will stop, inspect and potentially seize all suspect vessels transiting its exclusive economic zone, and is deploying the Swedish air force to back up this threat. Since the combined maritime economic zones of Sweden and the three Baltic states cover the whole of the central Baltic Sea, this amounts to a virtual threat to cut off all Russian trade exiting Russia via the Baltic — which would indeed be a very serious economic blow to Moscow.

It would also threaten to cut off Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, which is surrounded by Poland, from access to Russia by sea.

This is the kind of action that has traditionally led to war. The Swedish assumption seems to be that the Russian navy and air force in the Baltic are now so weak — and so surrounded by NATO territory — that there is nothing Moscow can do about this. However, it is very unlikely that the Swedes would take this step unless they also believe that in the event of a clash, Washington will come to Sweden’s defense — even though the EU and Swedish decisions were made without U.S. approval and are not strictly covered by NATO’s Article 5 commitment.

And despite all the hysterical language about Russia being “at war” with NATO countries, these moves by the EU and Sweden are also based on an assumption that Russia will not in fact lose its temper and react with military force. European policymakers might however want to think about a number of things: for example, what would the U.S. do if ships carrying U.S. cargo were intercepted by foreign warships? We know perfectly well that the U.S. would blow the warships concerned out of the water and declare that it had done so in defense of the sacred rule of free navigation — in which the EU also professes to believe.

EU leaders, and admirals, should also spend some time on Russian social media, and read the incessant attacks on the Putin administration by hardliners arguing precisely that Moscow has been far too soft and restrained in its response to Western provocations, and that this restraint has encouraged the West to escalate more and more. Such hardliners (especially within the security forces) are by far the greatest internal political threat that Putin faces.

It is important to note in this regard that moves to damage Russia’s “shadow fleet” have not been restricted to sanctions. In recent months there have been a string of attacks on such vessels in the Mediterranean with limpet mines and other explosive devices — developments that have been virtually ignored by Western media.

In December 2024, the Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank off Libya after an explosion in which two crewmembers were killed. The Reuters headline reporting these attacks was rather characteristic: “Three tankers damaged by blasts in Mediterranean in the last month, causes unknown, sources say.” Unknown, really? Who do we think were the likely perpetrators? Laotian special forces? Martians? And what are European governments doing to investigate these causes?

If the Russians do sink a Swedish or Estonian warship, the Trump administration will face a terribly difficult decision on how to respond to a crisis that is not of its own choosing: intervene and risk a direct war with Russia, or stand aside and ensure a deep crisis with Europe. The U.S. administration would therefore be both wise and entirely within its rights to state publicly that it does not endorse and will not help to enforce this decision.

Washington also needs — finally — to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about all this. The overwhelming majority of senators who are proposing to impose 500% tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy have apparently not realized that one of the two biggest countries in this category is India — now universally regarded in Washington as a vital U.S. partner in Asia. And now America’s European allies are relying on U.S. support to seize ships providing that energy to India.

The U.S. administration would also be wise to warn European countries that if this strategy leads to maritime clashes with Russia, they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. Especially given the new risk of war with Iran, the last thing Washington needs now is a new flare-up of tension with Moscow necessitating major U.S. military deployments to Europe. And the last thing the world economy needs are moves likely to lead to a still greater surge in world energy prices.

European governments and establishments seem to have lost any ability to analyze the possible wider consequences of their actions. So — not for the first time — America will have to do their thinking for them.

Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran-Israel War: China Refuses to React, and That’s the Strategy

GVS Deep Dive | June 17, 2025

As Israel and Iran edge closer to full-scale war, one major power is choosing silence over escalation: China. Despite being Iran’s largest oil customer and a self-declared counterbalance to U.S. dominance, Beijing has refused to take sides.

In this GVS Deep Dive, we examine:
🔹 China’s muted response to Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites
🔹 President Xi Jinping’s cautious diplomacy at the Central Asia Summit
🔹 Trump’s Truth Social posts warning 10 million Iranians to evacuate Tehran
🔹 The G7’s pro-Israel stance and growing Western military buildup in the Gulf
🔹 Why China sees wars like this as disruptions—not opportunities
🔹 And how China’s “smart diplomacy” and non-intervention policy are reshaping the rules of global power

While the West fuels chaos, China plays the long game. But the real question is: Can it afford to stay out if this war explodes into something bigger?

Najma tweets @MinhasNajma

Najma Minhas is Managing Editor, Global Village Space. She has worked with National Economic Research Associates (NERA) in New York, Lehman Brothers in London and Standard Chartered Bank in Pakistan. Before launching GVS, she worked as a consultant with World Bank, and USAID. Najma studied Economics at London School of Economics and International Relations at Columbia University, NewYork. She tweets at @MinhasNajma.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Net Zero’ Is Collapsing in U.S. States

By Steve Goreham – Master Resource – June 16, 2025

From New York to California, state renewable electrical power dreams are collapsing. Power demands soar, while the federal government cuts funding and support for wind, solar, and grid batteries. Renewables cannot provide enough power to support the artificial intelligence revolution. The Net Zero electricity transition is failing in the United States.

For the last two decades, state governments have embraced policies aimed at replacing coal and natural gas power plants with renewable sources. Twenty-three states enacted laws or executive orders to move to 100% Net Zero electricity by 2050. Onshore and offshore wind, utility-scale and rooftop solar, and grid-scale batteries were heavily promoted by states and most federal administrations.

The New York State Climate Action Scoping Plan of 2022 called for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% by 2040. But 49.7% of the state’s electricity came from gas in 2024, up from 47.7% in 2023. A January executive order issued by President Trump halted federal leases for construction of offshore wind systems. New York, nine other east coast states, and California were counting on offshore wind in efforts to get to 100% renewable electricity, but new offshore wind projects are now halted.

Wind and solar have benefited from federal tax credits, loans, and outright grants since 1992. But the Trump administration is now working to slash federal government support for these technologies. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) passed the House of Representatives on May 22. The bill eliminates Production Tax Credits and Investment Tax Credits for renewable systems that begin construction later than 60 days after passage of the bill or for projects that do not complete construction by year end 2028. The bill also halts the sale of tax credits from renewable projects. If the Senate passes the bill, these measures will choke off green energy projects that have relied on federal funding for decades.

Wind and solar advocates attack the OBBB, warning that the bill would create a “nightmare scenario” for US clean energy. These same advocates claim that wind and solar are the lowest-cost generators of electricity but also demand that huge federal subsidies must continue.

Along with federal cutbacks, the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution now drives the nation’s power system, interrupting the renewable electricity transition. Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and other giant firms are building new data centers and upgrading existing data centers to power AI. AI processors run 24-hours a day for months to enable computers to think like humans. When servers are upgraded to support AI, they consume 6 to 10 times more power than when used for cloud storage and the internet. Data centers consumed 4% of US electricity at the start of 2024 but are projected to consume 20% within the next decade.

Artificial intelligence drives a massive increase in electricity demand. For years, state legislators forced grid operators to close coal and natural gas power plants as part of a transition to renewables. More than 200 coal-fired power plants were closed. But now, many states face a shortage of generating capacity. Virginia has the highest concentration of data centers in the world, with power consumption forecasted to triple by 2040. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas estimates that Texas electricity demand will soar from a record 85.5 gigawatts in 2023 to 218 GW by 2031.

In December, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation concluded that that over half of North America risks power shortfalls in the next decade from surging demand and coal and gas plant retirements. Grid operators are now stepping back from the transition to wind and solar. Coal-fired power plant closures have been postponed in Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and other states. Nuclear plants are being restarted in Michigan and Pennsylvania. But the big winner will be natural gas.

More than 200 gas plants are planned or under construction. Gas facilities can be brought online in about three years, compared to ten years for nuclear plants. Gas plants can be built near cities, often on former power plant sites, and require fewer new transmission lines than needed by wind and solar systems.

The latest trend is BYOP (bring your own power). AI firms are building their own gas plants to power data centers. Gas turbine manufacturer capacity is now sold out for years. The gas share of electricity production will rise from 43.6% of US consumption in 2024 to much higher levels. The AI power demand and the push for gas are destroying state plans for a transition to green electricity.

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Texas, and other states are installing grid-scale batteries to try to compensate for wind and solar intermittency. Huge lithium batteries are intended to store excess wind and solar output when the wind blows and the sun shines and then release electricity when wind and solar output is low. But lithium batteries are unproven technology that is prone to spontaneous ignition, creating huge fires that are difficult to extinguish and which endanger residents.

In the last two years, California suffered four grid battery fires, each at facilities less than five years old. The Otay Mesa storage facility near San Diego burned for more than a week and reignited three times. The Moss Landing battery facility, located south of Santa Cruz, caught fire in January. Forty percent of Moss Landing, one of the largest grid-scale battery facilities in the world, was destroyed in the fire. Residents have sued to prevent the restart of Moss Landing. New York also had three grid battery fires in the last 18 months. Battery fires release toxic gases, force evacuations and school closures, and disrupt communities.

In addition, grid batteries are very expensive. To back up a wind or solar facility for 24 hours requires batteries that cost about ten times as much as the wind or solar system itself. But without grid batteries, wind and solar cannot replace coal, gas, or nuclear generation and still provide reliable power.

The cost of wind, solar, and batteries is hurting the renewable electricity transition. Electricity rates in California, the epicenter of green energy, have risen 116% in the last 16 years, more than three times the national average increase of 33%. California’s residential electricity prices are now over 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, the second highest in the nation. Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island complete the top five for the highest US power costs—all states with aggressive green electricity goals.

The Net Zero electricity transition, endorsed by many states for more than a decade, is failing in the United States. Wind, solar, and batteries suffer from the offshore wind cancellation, federal subsidy cuts, inability to meet the demand of the artificial intelligence revolution, grid battery fires, and high cost. A green energy breakdown is underway. States will be forced to return to sensible energy policy.

———————

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

June 20, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Israel received 14 weapon shipments from US, Germany since start of Iran war

The Cradle | June 20, 2025

Fourteen military cargo planes have arrived in Israel since the start of Tel Aviv’s brutal war against Iran, the Israeli Defense Ministry confirmed.

According to the ministry, the shipments are part of a broader flow of 800 military cargo planes that have arrived in Israel since the start of the genocidal war against Gaza in October 2023.

The ministry stated the shipment is “part of efforts to strengthen operational continuity and support all the IDF’s needs, both for achieving the goals of the war and for improving readiness and stockpiles.”

Most of these planes originated from the US, while the rest came from Germany.

The ministry confirmed that the latest shipments, which arrived on 19 June, are carrying equipment for Israel’s defense systems, which are being used to intercept Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile strikes against Israeli targets.

Military cargo planes are expected to continue arriving in the coming weeks, the Israeli Defense Ministry added. It said that these shipments are part of a joint effort involving the Defense Procurement Administration, procurement delegations in the US and Germany, the Israeli army’s Planning and Force Build-Up Directorate, and the Israeli Air Force.

The US has continued to funnel massive amounts of weapons and military equipment into Israel, and has deployed warships and fighter jets to the region to help the Israeli army in its attempts to shoot down Iranian missiles.

Middle East Eye reported on 14 June that before the Israeli attack on Iran last Friday, the US covertly delivered about 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel.

Since the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza began, Washington has delivered over 90,000 tons of armaments and military equipment.

“The US is a partner in the Israeli aggression against Iran, even if it does not participate publicly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 20 June.

Over the past few days, there has been widespread anticipation over a potential decision by US President Donald Trump to directly enter the war against Iran – particularly for joint strikes on the Fordow nuclear facility.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Trump said on Thursday.

Reports in Hebrew media have said Trump may be trying to deceive the Iranians, and could be planning to enter the war much sooner.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN said in Geneva on 18 June that Tehran will “respond seriously and strongly” if Washington directly enters the Israeli war.

The Islamic Republic had previously warned that all US bases in the region were within its reach and would be targeted if Washington launched an attack against the country.

June 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Mohammad Marandi: Iran Prepares for War with America

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi and Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 19, 2025

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi discusses the US preparations to enter the war directly, and Iran’s preparations to fight the US. Trump will only accept Iran’s surrender, yet he does not appear to have the means to achieve this objective. What will happen if US strikes are ineffective and US military assets in the region are attacked? The only path forward now is reckless escalation.

June 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »