Here we go again – $1 trillion for US ‘defense’
By Drago Bosnic | April 12, 2025
Remember when President Donald Trump promised to make the US military “far more powerful, but for much less money”? Remember when he pledged to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours? Well, me neither. In all seriousness, we can always say that Trump is a politician and that truth or consistency are not exactly the defining qualities of any politician.
On the other hand, the Messianic Complex among many Trumpists is certainly concerning, as there’s little questioning of Trump’s policies. He’s most definitely a very polarizing figure. The vast majority of people are either his staunch supporters or have TDS (Trump derangement syndrome). This prevents a more objective view of his performance, both at home and abroad.
Namely, Trump is exposed to numerous interest groups, many of which have very diverging views on how America should be. The old Deep State sees him as the greatest threat to “Pax Americana” and wants him out at all costs (including through physical removal), while other interest groups think extreme measures are unnecessary and that simply influencing Trump’s decision-making is more than enough.
The latter seem to be leading the charge, while the remnants of the previous administration are engaged in largely pointless protests. However, despite superficial enmity between them, there’s a quite solid continuity in many policies of the two administrations. This is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy and financing the US military.
In the case of the former, the Biden administration’s crawling economic warfare against the European Union (primarily through the destruction of its trade with Russia while the US continued to buy critical commodities from Moscow and even resell them to Europe) has been augmented by Trump’s trade wars.
In the case of the latter, there’s a robust continuity with virtually every US administration in the last 35 years (at the very least). Namely, the consistent increase in American military spending is a clear indicator that the same people are making the final decision on this issue, regardless of who’s in power. The Trump administration’s latest announcement regarding the US “defense” budget effectively proves this is precisely the case.
Namely, on April 7, President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed that the Pentagon will get its first $1 trillion. Interestingly, what should’ve been breaking news was sidelined by global panic regarding the impact of new tariffs. In his usual manner of using superlatives, Trump said that “nobody’s seen anything like it”, adding that “we have to build our military, and we’re very cost-conscious, but the military is something we have to build, and we have to be strong”. It’s certainly commendable to see a government exercise “cost-consciousness”, with Trump employing Musk’s DOGE to be “the ultimate auditing organization”. However, giving a trillion dollars to the unaudited US military sounds like anything but frugality.
On paper, the administration has been adamant about cutting excess government spending, so this move doesn’t make much sense (unless all the auditing was designed to help find the money for the Pentagon). The logical conclusion is that Trump is exposed to the influence of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) just as much as any other president.
Hegseth was certainly happy with the arrangement, as evidenced by his announcement on Twitter/X where he thanked Trump and presented the development as something “fantastic for everyone”. It would be interesting to see what American taxpayers think about the fact that their money will be invested in more death and destruction instead of restoring America’s crumbling infrastructure.
As previously mentioned, the first official $1 trillion for the US military was only a matter of time, as the troubled Biden administration announced it two years ago, when it pledged to double the Pentagon’s budget. The latest increase is in line with this plan, as the actual US DoD spending has been well over $1 trillion for years (many of its expenses are distributed to other departments). In addition, the Biden administration’s 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was officially $895 billion, so the latest increase is nothing out of the ordinary and is in line with regular spikes in military spending with every US government in recent history. This certainly breaks the Trump administration’s attempts to present itself as “anti-establishment”.
In addition, the move can only exacerbate America’s debt crisis, particularly after it reached $35 trillion last year and is expected to go over $40 trillion next year. Experts are warning that the latest increase in military spending will likely add at least another trillion to the already rapidly growing debt and that budget cuts are yet to affect the Pentagon, adding that the US military “does precisely nothing to defend the USA” and that it “exclusively interferes in other countries”.
And indeed, Trump’s reshuffling at the Pentagon was largely political and never affected its financing. Worse yet, he also supports continued US aggression in the Middle East, where a war with Iran is looming. In addition, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants to expand the US nuclear sharing policy.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Disaster in the Making: Secretary of State Rubio Proclaims the US Should Spend Five Percent of GDP on ‘Defense’
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | April 12, 2025
Since his first term, we have grown used to President Donald Trump badgering governments of fellow NATO countries to increase their “defense” spending to five percent of their respective GDPs. Quote marks are used in the preceding sentence because such spending by these governments, or the US, will largely be used for offense, feeding the military-industrial complex, and other purposes far removed from defense.
So far, fellow NATO members have steered clear of achieving this spending goal. Their residents should be happy that is the case as the money can instead be left in their pockets or at least be hoped to be spent by government on something that may provide them with some benefit instead of furthering death and destruction — butter, not guns.
Interestingly, the US government, despite all its hectoring, has also refrained from reaching that five percent of GDP figure for its spending on the Department of Defense. The targeted spending level would come in at nearly double current spending on what is already a top area of government spending. That increase would drop down some if various spending beyond the Defense Department spending is included as “defense” spending.
Comments made last week by US Secretary of Defense Marco Rubio indicated the goal is for the US to also reach this spending level. Rubio declared ahead of a NATO meeting that “we do want to leave here with an understanding that we are on a pathway, a realistic pathway, to every single one of the [NATO] members committing and fulfilling a promise to reach up to five percent of spending; that includes the United States will have to increase its percentage.”
Hopefully, this is just talk. To follow through on this course would be to invite disaster.
With a huge and growing debt, the US cannot afford the increase. Such an increase will help bring the nation more quickly toward financial disaster. It will likely even help ensure increased spending in other areas as was experienced during the Ronald Reagan administration when the executive branch bargained with legislators for more military spending by agreeing to increased spending in other areas too.
More war can be expected as a result as well. The temptation for politicians to use a “new and improved” military brought into being by the increased spending would be immense.
More debt and more war is a literally killer combination for America.
The fix is in for new Air Force F-47 — and so is the failure
By Andrew Cockburn | Responsible Statecraft | April 7, 2025
If and when it finally comes to be written decades from now, an honest history of the F-47 “fighter” recently unveiled by President Trump will doubtless have much to say about the heroic lobbying campaign that garnered the $20 billion development contract for Boeing, the corporation that has become a byword for program disasters (see the KC-46 tanker, the Starliner spacecraft, the 737 MAX airliner, not to mention the T-7 trainer.)
Boeing, which is due to face trial in June on well-merited federal charges of criminal fraud, was clearly in line for a bailout. But such succor was by no means inevitable given recent doubts from Air Force officials about proceeding with another manned fighter program at all.
“You’ve never seen anything like this,” said Trump in the March Oval Office ceremony announcing the contract award.
Well, of course we have, most obviously in recent times with the ill-starred F-35. Recall that in 2001 the Pentagon announced that the F-35 program would cost $200 billion and would enter service in 2008. Almost a quarter century later, acquisition costs have doubled, the total program price is nudging $2 trillion, and engineers are still struggling to make the thing work properly.
Thus, succeeding chapters of the F-47’s history will likely have to cover the galloping cost overruns, unfulfilled technological promises, ever-lengthening schedule shortfalls, and ultimate production cancellation when only a portion of the force had been built.
There seems little risk in predicting the F-47 — “a beautiful number,” said the 47th president — will follow the same dollar-strewn path. As Trump truthfully remarked, “we can’t tell you the price.” And don’t imagine that, if the development phase reveals that the program can’t fulfill any or most of its projected requirements, the Air Force will call it a day and kill the program. The official Air Force press release accompanying the announcement states: “This phase will produce a small number of test aircraft for evaluation. The contract also includes competitively priced options for low-rate initial production.”
In other words, the fix is in. “Low rate initial production” means that subcontracts will be spread across the political landscape, ensuring the creation of an unstoppable lobby preventing any future effort to strangle this boondoggle in its cradle.
For confirmation, look only at the F-35, 1,000 or so copies of which were cranked out before Lockheed got the go-ahead for full-scale production. In confident anticipation that nothing will interrupt the production cycle, Boeing has invested a reported $2 billion in expanding production facilities at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant, where production of the F-15EX (a costly version of the venerable F-15, originally gold-plated to sell to the Qataris) is due to end this year.
Extolling the plane’s advertised virtues, Trump singled out its presumed invisibility to radar. “America’s enemies will never see it coming,” he said.
Stealth has indeed been the holy grail of aerospace development ever since the days when Jimmy Carter sought to kill the B-1 bomber program in favor of the F-117 stealth bomber. (We did of course end up buying both.) Claims for this technology appeared to be justified when Lockheed’s F-117 diminutive bomber was advertised as having effortlessly penetrated Iraqi air defenses undetected on the first night of the 1991 Gulf War.
Only later did a GAO report reveal that in fact the planes had required the protection of a fleet of electronic warfare planes, and they missed most of their assigned targets, and furthermore failed to destroy Saddam’s air-defense network as claimed.
In the 1999 Kosovo war, the Serbs managed to knock down one F-117 and severely damage another using clever tactics and a modified ancient Soviet SAM missile system. Nowadays both the Chinese and Russians claim to have developed technologies to detect stealth intruders — there are even claims that the Chinese system could passively employ signals from Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starlink satellite array!
Nevertheless, the F-47 designers have clearly prioritized stealth, despite the fact that obligatory features, such as carrying all bombs and missiles internally, enlarge the fuselage. Hence the large nose-on profile, apparent even in the uninformative images so far released. This militates against aerodynamic performance and maneuverability, unfortunate deficiencies for a fighter.
Such carping aside, the most notable feature of the F-47 program is that it will purportedly not fly alone, but be accompanied by unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or drones, “as many as you want,” according to Trump. The Air Force plans to buy 1,000 of them, at around $30 million a pop.
Under the overall direction of the F-47 pilot, they will in theory at least be able to engage enemy planes, attack targets on the ground, or perform reconnaissance. Two contractors, General Atomics and Anduril, are already competing for the initial CCA contract and have been displaying mockups of their candidates at trade shows since last year while hurling insults at each other via social media and the trade press.
“Anduril is the Theranos of defense,” jibed General Atomics spokesman Mark Brinkley during the Air Force Association jamboree in Washington D.C. last September, referencing the infamous Palo Alto startup that fraudulently claimed to perform comprehensive medical diagnostics from a single drop of blood. Both contestants are supposed to put prototypes in the air this summer.
Pentagon insiders are not impressed either with the concept or at least progress to date. One veteran observer of technologically ambitious programs suggested to me that the Air Force staff officers supervising the CCA program may be easy prey for the contractors.
“They’re not nearly skeptical enough about General Atomics or Anduril. I don’t see any of the skepticism they should be exhibiting for pouring out this kind of money,” the observer said.
Hopefully, these glib enthusiasts will be mulling the problems associated with the software required to enable an F-47 “quarterback” pilot to oversee the operations of the wingmen drones. After all, their peers in the F-35 program are still struggling with “Technology Refresh-3,” the latest (failing) effort to make the plane’s software work adequately. Mulling other inevitable problems facing an F-47 in combat, such as surviving enemy efforts “to find you, track you, and kill you” before getting into position to deploy the unmanned aircraft with their missile loads
“I don’t know why we’re doing it, I don’t get it,” the observer concluded.
Last December, then-Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall suggested that the Air Force might not be able to afford a next-generation fighter as well as the collaborative drone, in addition to a next-generation refueling tanker, and that “we have to get somewhat creative…to meet the threat.” As it turned out, no creativity at all was required, as the history books will most assuredly record.
Maidan and Odessa – The West’s Ukrainian Massacres
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 12, 2025
In 2016 and 2017, I was invited by the families of the victims of the 2014 Odessa Trade Union House massacre to document this atrocity. The slaughter on May 2, 2014, received little – if any – attention in Western media. Over 40 people were burned alive after a mob of neo-Nazi hooligans, backed by the West, attacked peaceful protesters demonstrating against the fascist regime installed in Kiev. This regime was the product of a 2013 coup d’état orchestrated by the U.S. and its EU accomplices, branded as the “Maidan Revolution.” By 2014, its violence had spread to Odessa.
The Mothers of Odessa – echoing Argentina’s Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo – sought justice for the massacre. Like the Argentine mothers who protested the disappearances under military dictatorship, they demanded accountability for May 2, a day the West has long buried in silence – because it was complicit in Kiev’s coup and, indirectly, Odessa’s tragedy.
That day, a football match between Kharkov’s Metalist and Odessa’s Chornomorets had drawn hooligans, including followers of Andriy Parubiy – a self-proclaimed admirer of Hitler’s national socialism. Many of these neo-Nazis later joined the Azov Regiment, entrenching themselves in Mariupol’s Azovstal plant. But on May 2, 2014, they descended on the Trade Union House, slaughtering 42 protesters.
Parubiy, a fascist and neo-Nazi, would later ascend to Ukraine’s political elite, serving as Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council and Speaker of Parliament. He was warmly received by EU officials, including Victoria Nuland, even as he pushed laws banning Russian, Crimean Tatar, Romanian, and Hungarian in official spheres.
In March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled on the case – eleven years late. It found Ukraine guilty of failing to investigate and awarded each victim’s family a meagre €14,000 in damages. The court also condemned Kiev for delaying the return of one victim’s body to his family. A token verdict for state-sanctioned murder.
The police and judiciary’s refusal to act in Odessa mirrored the Maidan massacre in February 2014, where fascist gunmen – backed by the U.S. and EU – fired on protesters from the Hotel Ukraina, sparking chaos to enable the coup. Among the orchestrators were EU figures like the late Dutch politician Hans van Baalen (VVD) and Belgium’s Guy Verhofstadt, who incited the mob with inflammatory speeches.
Recent revelations expose the role of Georgian mercenary Mamuka Mamulashvili and U.S. sniper Brian Christopher Boyenger, a former US Army soldier. Both apparently helped lead the group of snipers who fired on the protesters from the Ukraina hotel in Kiev during the Maidan coup.
It’s worth noting that these efforts were likely supported – and possibly encouraged – by former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Mamuka Mamulashvili, who served as a senior military advisor to Saakashvili, played a key role in what was termed the “revolution” in Ukraine. Saakashvili’s involvement bore fruit: on May 30, 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed him governor of Odessa. To assume the role, Saakashvili took Ukrainian citizenship, renouncing his Georgian ties. However, in 2017, his Ukrainian citizenship was revoked, leaving him stateless and residing in the Netherlands. Later, President Volodymyr Zelensky reinstated Saakashvili’s citizenship and, in May 2020, appointed him head of Ukraine’s National Reform Council. In 2021, Saakashvili returned to Georgia, where he was arrested on corruption charges and remains imprisoned.
Mamuka Mamulashvili has led the Georgian Legion, a military unit fighting against Russia in Ukraine, and is wanted by Russian authorities. Likely recruited between 2013 and 2014, Mamulashvili allegedly served American interests, including acting as a sniper in Kiev during that period. His involvement spans decades of conflicts in the Caucasus, including wars in Abkhazia, Chechnya, South Ossetia, and now Ukraine, where he commands the Georgian Legion.
A recent report highlighted American fighters returning from Ukraine, bringing violence home. One such figure, Brian Christopher Boyenger, served with the Right Sector in Ukraine during the summer of 2016. Boyenger appeared in a Ukrainian documentary aired in April 2016, alongside another American, showcasing their combat roles. A former sniper with the U.S. 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, Boyenger later joined the 2014 Maidan events in Kiev as a sniper.
The conflict in Ukraine didn’t begin with Russia’s Special Military Operation in 2022 but traces back to the 2013 coup, often labelled a “revolution.” This event, one of many U.S.-backed regime changes – frequently in collaboration with the EU – spiralled out of control. The West believed it had Russia cornered, expecting NATO’s expansion to Ukraine would weaken Moscow. The U.S. and Europe anticipated an easy victory in this proxy war, pushing toward Odessa to spark another uprising. They overlooked Odessa’s predominantly Russian-speaking population, miscalculating the city’s loyalties. The ultimate aim was regime change in Russia, a goal partially achieved in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Yet Ukraine exposed the limits of Western hubris, costing countless lives since 1945. Europe now faces decline, no longer aligned with the “MAGA” vision of America.
The “Make America Great Again” movement prioritizes self-interest but hasn’t abandoned imperialism. It backs Zionism – a colonial project since 1948 – in Israel and seeks global dominance through commerce, though it shuns investment in Gaza, as Trump recently stated. America now operates like a ruthless corporation, trading overt wars for business deals while still fuelling conflicts in Palestine, Syria, and Yemen. Europe, meanwhile, reels from its defeat in Ukraine, fearing an eventual war with Russia – perhaps by 2030, some speculate.
The scars endure in Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol, and Volnovakha, where war has claimed countless loved ones. Calls for peace echo loudly, yet for the residents of Russia’s four new regions, peace remains elusive. They know who fired the shots: Western proxies, including Americans and Europeans, with the latter still clinging to the path of conflict.
Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Robbed Western Taxpayers of $7.8Bln in Lost Military Equipment
Sputnik – 12.04.2025
MOSCOW – Kiev lost in the Kursk Region 5,500 units of equipment supplied by the West worth $7.8 billion, Sputnik calculations based on the data provided by the Russian Sever group of forces, as well as on the data on the equipment’s cost from open sources revealed on Saturday.
Earlier Sputnik, on the basis of the data from the Russian Sever group of forces calculated that during the hostilities in the Kursk Region Kiev spent more than $27 billion, which is more than half of all foreign financial aid received by Ukraine from Western countries in 2024.
According to open sources, the average cost of a tank is $4.5 million, a self-propelled artillery unit – $4 million, an APC – $300,000, a BMP – $600,000, etc. The total value of the trophy equipment destroyed and taken by the Russian Armed Forces was calculated by Sputnik and amounted to about $7.8 billion.’
“Part of the allocated funds was spent by the Ukrainian armed forces for supplemental staffing and partial repairs before sending the equipment into combat operations,” the Sever group of forces said.
Ukraine Could Be Sabotaging Agreements by Violating Moratorium with Strikes on Energy Facilities
Sputnik – 12.04.2025
MOSCOW – Kiev’s strikes on energy facilities are carried out either because there was no order to halt them or because the order was not followed, Director of the Second Department of CIS Countries of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexey Polishchuk told Sputnik in an interview out on Saturday.
“This can be happening for two reasons. Either Kiev did not give the order to cease shelling, or the order is not being followed. Both of these reasons are extremely worrying,” Polishchuk said.
If there was no order given, then we are dealing with deliberate sabotage of agreements, Polishchuk also said.
“If it [the order] is not implemented, then the Kiev authorities are failing to control their own military,” Polishchuk added.
Russian President Vladimir Putin had a phone call with US President Donald Trump on March 18. Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to the conflict to mutually refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Putin supported this initiative. Later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine would support the proposal to stop attacks on energy infrastructure.
Since the agreement on a 30-day moratorium on strikes against energy facilities was reached, Kiev has violated it more than 60 times, Alexey Polishchuk added.
“The Kiev regime is indeed maliciously violating the 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy facilities, which was agreed upon on March 18 by the presidents of Russia and the United States [Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump] and then supported by [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy,” Polishchuk said.
Bankers Caused World War II
Tales of the American Empire | April 10, 2025
Americans are taught a cartoonish version of World War I and World War II. We are told there was no conflict. Germans were inherently evil people who must be destroyed so Americans fought to save the world. The word “Nazi” remains common in our language as an evil person. In reality, both wars were caused by bankers and industrial tycoons who reaped great profits.
________________________________________
Related Tale: “The Genocide Called World War I”; 
• The Genocide Called World War I
Related Tale: “The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918”; • The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918
“Blockade of Germany (1914-1919)”; Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockad…)
“Was Germany Really Starved Into Surrender in WW1?”; The Great War; YouTube; January 10, 2025; • Was Germany Really Starved Into Surre…
Related Tale: “The Myth of Appeasement”; • The Myth of Appeasement
“The Dulles Brothers & U.S. Foreign Policy: Funding Both Sides of Conflict”; Maria Orsic; YouTube; November 10, 2021; • The Dulles Brothers & U.S. Foreign Po…
“Bush the Father”; Wide Eyes Open; YouTube; December 25, 2024; • BUSH THE FATHER – CHAPTER 1
Charles Higham, “Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot – 1033-1949”, New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 1983. Zachary Karabell, “Inside Money: Brown Brothers Harriman and the American Way of Power”, New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2021. Stephen Kinzer, “The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War”, New York, NY: Times Books, 2013.
Nancy Lisagor, “A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm of Sullivan and Cromwell”, William Morrow & Co; 1st edition (May 1, 1988).
David Talbot, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government”, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Antony C. Sutton, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler”, San Pedro, CA: GSG & Associates Publishers, 2002.
Antony C. Sutton, “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”, Billings, MT: Liberty House Press, 1986.
Glen Yeadon & John Hawkins, “Nazi Hydra: Suppressed History of a Century”, Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press, 2008. Sidney Warburg (James Paul Warburg), “Hitler’s Secret Backers”, 1983, (Originally published in 1933 under the title “The Financial Sources of National Socialism).
Related Tale: “Yamashita’s Gold and the CIA”; • Yamashita’s Gold and the CIA
“Himmler’s Fourth Reich – SS Assets Saved in Global Conspiracy”; Mark Felton Productions; October 9, 2024; • Himmler’s Fourth Reich – SS Assets Sa…
Steve Witkoff’s Iran mission holds seamless possibilities
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 11, 2025
The rubric of the US-Iranian talks slated for Saturday in Muscat turned into a vanity fair of sorts — whether the talks should be called ‘indirect’ or ‘direct’. The US President Donald Trump sought direct talks and claimed that Iranians conveyed through back channel that they had no objection to it. Furthermore, Trump disclosed that indirect talks already started. While maintaining publicly that the talks will be ‘indirect’, Iranians didn’t call out Trump.
Accordingly, Trump nominated his trusted aide and longstanding friend Steve Witkoff to represent him at the talks. Tehran reciprocated with Abbas Araqchi, a veteran nuclear negotiator and brilliant diplomat, and currently the foreign minister.
Trump noted with satisfaction that Tehran has fielded a negotiator at the highest possible level. Interestingly, Trump made the announcement on the talks from the Oval Office in the presence of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Such hyper activism on the optics may create a surreal impression. After all, there is also a military build-up going on in the US base in Diego Garcia, including B-52 heavy bombers with a range of 10000 kms. But the Russian assessment is that the US’ mobilisation of military assets falls way short of the level of force strength required to start a war with Iran.
The presence of Araqchi and Witkoff at the talks in Muscat underscores that both sides are approaching the talks in all seriousness conscious of the real risk of a dangerous escalation of the present precarious situation around the Iran nuclear issue if concrete progress is not achieved in the negotiations by mid-2025.
The clock starts ticking for the E3 (France, Germany, and Britain) to move to restore the UN Security Council sanctions on Iran by invoking the JCPOA’s veto-proof ‘snapback’ mechanism for which the cutoff date is the month of October. Snapback also restores Security Council ban on uranium enrichment, further reactor development, and ballistic missile activities.
Tehran has warned that if the UN sanctions are restored, it may withdraw from the NPT in response and if that happens, it is no longer obligated to retain IAEA safeguards. But there is a gestation period of 3 months before Iran’s exit from NPT gets formalised.
Enter Russia. According to the 1992 nuclear cooperation agreement between Moscow and Tehran, “nuclear material, equipment, special non-nuclear-material, and related technology” as well as nuclear materials produced by the result of transferred technology “shall be under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards” during their “entire period” of stay in Iran.
The agreement further stipulates that these materials “shall be used only for declared purposes that are not connected with activities of manufacturing nuclear explosive devices” and “shall not be used to carry out activities in the field of nuclear fuel cycle” that are not under IAEA safeguards.
Suffice to say, at the very least, Iran’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia may obligate Tehran to retain some IAEA presence. Russia’s economic interests in nuclear cooperation with Iran will also play a part. Besides, the recent Russian-Iranian treaty on strategic cooperation explicitly affirms Tehran’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Russia also tends to prioritise a constructive engagement of the US in its foreign policies and its moderating influence on Iran lest it goes the North Korean way will be a significant factor in the US-Iranian negotiations. The situation around Iran has already figured more than once in the recent US-Russia exchanges since February including at the highest level between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
During this week, against the backdrop of the talks in Muscat, President Masoud Pezeshkian made certain significant remarks. It is entirely conceivable that he was speaking for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
First, Pezeshkian said Khamenei is “not opposed to US entities investing capital” in the Iranian economy. Succinctly put, this is a radical departure from Iran’s traditional stance.
Second, Pezeshkian said, “We are open to dialogue, but with dignity and pride, we will not compromise on our achievements and we will not make deals (on them).” In effect, Pezeshkian has notified that any suggestions that the only acceptable deal with Iran must include complete dismantlement of the country’s nuclear program will be a non-starter.
Third, Pezeshkian not only reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons but stated its willingness to be subject to robust safeguards. As he put it, “We are not looking for an atomic bomb. Who is setting policy above the Leader of the Islamic Revolution who has officially announced that we are not looking for a nuclear bomb? Check it a thousand times. You can verify a thousand times that we don’t have atomic bombs, but we need nuclear science and nuclear energy.”
Fourth, Pezeshkian also had a message of sorts for Israel. He said, “We are not looking for war, but we will stand strong against any aggression with the knowledge and power that our scientists have created. The more they harm us, the more powerful we will become, and the stronger we will stand against any threat they pose to us.”
Taken together, these remarks by Pezeshkian would give a fair idea of what the contours of a possible settlement of the nuclear issue could be as the talks proceed.
Most importantly, Iran seeks an economic partnership with the US and implicit in it is the unspoken readiness for political and diplomatic ties. Iran’s approach bears an uncanny resemblance to what Russia has adopted in its nascent dialogue with the Trump administration. Trump’s choice of Witkoff as the negotiator for Iran can be seen as a signal that the US is open to explore opportunities of economic cooperation with Iran as an underpinning to the normalisation process. (By the way, the Washington Post has reported that Witkoff is willing to travel to Tehran, if invited.) Certainly, Tehran pins hopes on Witkoff bringing new thinking into the paradigm. Do not be surprised if he travels to Tehran in the near future.
That said, the Trump administration must appreciate that Iran lives in a tough security environment and is attempting to use its nuclear threshold status as a deterrent. Therefore, what is possible is a combination of limits and monitoring that can adequately reduce proliferation risks.
The onus is on Witkoff to articulate behind closed doors realistic US objectives for a nuclear deal, bearing in mind that politics is the art of the possible. This involves refraining from calls for the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, and, equally, the projection of ideas as to how Tehran will benefit from an agreement with the United States.
When I visited Tehran last June to observe the presidential election, a topic that came up in almost all conversations and TV interviews was: What to expect from a Trump administration? What I could sense was that contrary to what Israeli media management strives to project to muddy waters, Tehran has no revenge mentality and instead senses that Trump’s priorities in a second term are not about projection of power but the regeneration of America. As a civilisational state that was never colonised through millennia, Iranian culture is highly pragmatic but it will never surrender its legitimate interests or compromise under pressure. In this respect, it is a unique country in the region. (See an outstanding policy brief by Washington-based Arms Control Association titled The Art of a New Iranian Nuclear Deal in 2025.)
Iran’s relevance to the regeneration of the American economy (MAGA) is self-evident. Apart from vast mineral resources, Iran’s human resources can give a solid underpinning to economic and technological partnership with American business and industry. An enduring nuclear deal with Iran is best achieved through an overarching relationship to reengage with Iran as a partner after over four decades.
Prof. John Mearsheimer: Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran.
Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom | April 10, 2025
US cares about human rights only to target adversaries: Former State Department analyst
Press TV – April 10, 2025
A former US State Department analyst, who resigned over American complicity in the Gaza genocide, says the US government ignores human rights issues when it comes to weapons sales to allies.
In an article for Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Annelle Sheline outlined how the US uses human rights as a tool against adversaries while ignoring such issues for friendly governments.
“American leaders have consistently instrumentalized human rights concerns to target perceived adversaries while tossing aside such concerns when they apply to US partners” Sheline wrote.
Sheline also said the US government’s desire for global military primacy and weapon sales overrides concerns for human rights and even US law.
“[US] law stipulates that the United States will not provide security assistance to any country whose government engages in a “consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Yet this law, Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, which Congress passed in 1976, has never been applied.”
Sheline worked for the US State Department’s Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs (DRL/NEA) from March 2023 until March 2024, when she resigned in protest over US complicity in the Gaza genocide.
In the article, Sheline described how the Democratic and Republican parties both similarly disregard human rights for military and own foreign policy goals.
“To the extent that a partisan divide exists, it is primarily rhetorical. Democratic administrations usually talk more about human rights than Republican administrations… but neither party has upheld America’s legally binding commitment to not sell to governments that engage in gross violations of human rights.”
Sheline said President Donald Trump’s new foreign policy is not fundamentally different from that of previous administrations.
“President Trump nakedly pursues what he sees as US self-interest, while previous presidents largely preferred to cloak similar decisions in the language of morality and mutual benefit.”
The former State Department analyst also said that the United States has given full support to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
“The decision by the US government to directly enable Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza has severely damaged American credibility. Although Israel’s destruction of Gaza represents the most egregious example, the American government has almost never applied laws intended to punish human rights abusers in Israel.”
Sheline believes the US support for Israel is influenced by the pro-Israel lobby, in addition to being driven by foreign policy and military exports concerns.
On the other hand, according to Sheline, the US frequently uses human rights as a tool to apply pressure against governments that it sees as adversaries.
“The US primarily highlights human rights abuses by adversarial governments. As a result, human rights concerns tend to factor only into policies designed to counter perceived US enemies. The US government does not sell weapons to hostile powers, so criticizing these governments does not endanger weapon sales.”
Sheline outlined how US foreign policy shaped its human rights rhetoric in West Asia.
She said Israel’s human rights abuses receive “special dispensation” on the part of the US, which, ironically and in the absence of the lack of an existing relationship with certain governments like Iran, frequently criticizes and imposes sanctions on them for alleged human rights abuses.
“This suggests that human rights concerns did not drive US foreign policy, but rather were used as a means of justifying the policy the administration already wished to pursue.”
US-Funded “Anti-Misinformation” Groups Are Still Quietly Active
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2025
Despite the big and open push that came in with the new US administration to end the practice of the government funding third-party groups to effectively act as its censorship proxies – some of these arrangements continue to be operational.
Most appear to be working to strengthen previously established “preferred” narratives around health issues – as ever, with “combating misinformation” given as the declarative, overarching purpose behind the effort.
But critics say, that was/remains a smokescreen meant to manipulate public opinion.
The Federalist reports that the National Science Foundation (NSF) – one of the US government’s “independent agencies” designed to channel federal funds – had a number of programs under its “anti-misinformation” umbrella, the Convergence Accelerator.
Among the ones who continue to this day are Chime In, Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT), and Expert Voices Together (EVT).
Chime In’s original name was Course Correct. It was set up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – with $5 million coming from NSF in 2022 – to provide “anti-misinformation” resources for journalists.
True to the era, its original “mission” was to persuade (Covid) vaccine skeptics to take the jab; and then it went into advocating (“misinformation detecting”) in favor of persuading people there was no reason to be skeptical about genetically modified (GMO) foods, Covid narratives, and vaccines in general, as well as issues like sunscreen product and raw milk safety.
ARTT, meanwhile, came up with its own “AI” chatbot, that focused on political discourse, but according to the Federalist, once again, heavily tied to vaccine hesitancy.
From 2021, ARTT received close to $750,000 from the NSF, and a further $5 million, “to develop practical interventions to build trust and address vaccine hesitancy.”
Another controversial tie-in concerning ARTT was the organization’s plans to partner with, among others, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which the article describes as being “infamous for performing transgender surgeries on, and administering opposite-sex hormones to minors.”
ARTT – now operating as Discourse Labs, a non-profit – was, while one of the groups incubated by NSF’s Convergence Accelerator, backed up by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Wikimedia Foundation, Google, Mozilla, and Meta.
EVT’s “new home” as of 2025 is “the leftist group Right To Be,” the report says.
Some of the issues covered by this group are named, “Bystander Intervention To Support The LGBTQIA+ Community,” “Conflict De-Escalation In Protest Spaces,” and “Bystander Intervention To Stop Police Sponsored Violence and Anti-Black Racism.”
But the Federalist reported earlier that, “a representative from Right To Be” previously told the site EVT “remains under the direction of George Washington University (and) direct inquiries there.”
Featured Video
Iran Blockade Complications
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A low-fat, high-carb diet has been the largest public health experiment in history. It’s past time for a rethink.
By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | November 25, 2020
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
Why is this happening? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pirates of Mediterranean: Israel does as it pleases in the Sea of Three Continents
- Minab children massacre not ‘unfortunate situation’ but ‘heinous war crime’: Tehran
- OPCW Forced To Pay Damages To Whistleblower Who Found Evidence Of False Flag In Syria
- Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
- Iran slams US leadership, debunking fabrications, false war costs
- Here’s why Iran is sovereign and Germany is not
- Israel pours $730m into global propaganda machine as reputation collapses
- Leaked audios reveal pro-Israel groups ‘paid’ for US pardon of convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez
- Congress Extends Section 702 Spy Program 45 Days
- Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- 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 