Robert Barnes: Israel’s Become a Political Pariah, Republicans Take Note
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 12, 2026
Col Douglas Macgregor: Ukraine Russia War, Trump is Toothless
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 11, 2026
US Says “It’s the Middle of the Game” in Iran /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Brian McGlinchey
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 12, 2026
Iran says US ‘unprecedented violations’ of Geneva Conventions cannot be ignored
Press TV – August 12, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has condemned US threats and airstrikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure as clear war crimes, warning that normalizing such “unprecedented violations” of the Geneva Conventions would erode the international legal order.
In a post on X on Wednesday marking the 77th anniversary of the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions, Baghaei said the architects of the treaties could scarcely have imagined that decades later, the United States, as host of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, “would repeatedly threaten to attack the infrastructure, bridges, and power plants of another country, and would in fact commit such crimes.”
He said the conventions established fundamental rules governing armed conflict, including “humanity,” “distinction,” “military necessity,” and “proportionality,” as well as the prohibition of “unnecessary suffering,” with the aim of “civilizing humanity and humanizing war.”
Adopted in 1949, the four Geneva Conventions establish international rules for the protection of civilians, wounded and sick combatants, and prisoners of war during armed conflicts.
The Iranian diplomat urged the international community, the states party to the Geneva Conventions and Switzerland, as their depositary, not to “remain indifferent to such unprecedented violations, which constitute clear war crimes.”
Baghaei also invoked Common Article 1 of the conventions, stressing that it requires states not only to respect the treaties but also to ensure they are respected.
“Silence in the face of explicit threats against civilian objects is not mere political passivity,” he said, warning that such silence erodes one of the fundamental legal achievements of the post-World War II era.
Baghaei warned that airstrikes or threats targeting civilian infrastructure pose a broader threat to the security of all states, stressing that if the destruction of bridges, power plants, hospitals, electricity grids and water facilities becomes normalized, no country can be certain that its vital infrastructure will remain protected from external aggression.
“Wherever the law falls silent before power, what collapses is not merely a bridge or a power plant, but humanity’s confidence in the possibility of the rule of law in international relations.”
He also warned that the consequences of such threats would extend far beyond Iran, saying they represent “a regression of the entire legal order that humanity has built in its pursuit of civilization and the restraint of violence.”
Baghaei further stressed that Iranians remain resolute in the face of such threats, reiterating that “no number of trials can break those who stand firm on the path of resolve.”
In remarks to the press on Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Islamic Republic is standing up not only to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against US aggression, but also to uphold the humanitarian values and principles that humanity has developed throughout history.
Pentagon accused of ‘whitewashing’ civilian casualties
RT | August 12, 2026
The Pentagon was accused of whitewashing US Army crimes after publishing its annual estimate of civilian casualties in 2025.
The report, submitted to Congress late Monday and obtained by US news outlets, contains numbers that are far lower than estimates by independent outlets.
The Pentagon concluded that US military operations killed 153 civilians and injured 243 last year. All of the cited casualties in 2025 stemmed from Washington’s bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, while another 15 remain under review.
However, independent monitors have reported figures significantly higher. The Airwars group has estimated that at least 258 civilians may have been killed during the Yemen campaign, while the Yemen Data Project has put the toll at 238 dead and 467 injured. The Pentagon recorded no civilian casualties from US military operations in the Western Hemisphere, despite dozens of strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific beginning in September of 2025 – a point of particular criticism.
Two US government officials cited anonymously by The Intercept rejected the Pentagon’s assessment, with one describing the report as a “total whitewash” and another calling it “a f***ing joke.”
More than 200 people have been killed since Washington launched its campaign against suspected drug-smuggling vessels. Around 120 died in 2025 alone, but none were classified as civilians in the Pentagon report.
The Trump administration has described those targeted as “narco-terrorists” linked to cartels it considers terrorist organizations.
Washington has generally not released public evidence establishing that those killed aboard individual vessels were cartel members or that the boats were carrying narcotics. UN experts, legal specialists, and several Latin American governments have questioned the legal basis for the boat strikes, with critics describing them as extrajudicial killings.
The Pentagon’s latest casualty estimates mark a sharp increase from the two civilian deaths acknowledged in 2024. The figures are expected to be even higher for 2026 due to the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran.
Iran’s authorities have already reported more than 3,300 deaths since the conflict began in February, nearly half of them civilians. Among them are 200 children, including more than 120 schoolgirls killed in a US strike on an elementary school in Minab on the first day of the war.
New Book Reveals How The Israel Lobby Destroyed U.S. Diplomacy With Iran
Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick Reveal How The Israel Lobby Paved The Way For A U.S. War On Iran
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Investigative journalist Eli Clifton and political scientist Ian Lustick have released a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy titled “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”.
The book contains a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence over various U.S. administrations going back to its creation.
Among the book’s most interesting revelations is how the Israel Lobby pushed anti-Iran propaganda in the United States in order to destroy U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
This campaign- the book noted- began when the Obama administration was negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, aka the JCPOA.
The authors note that Israel Lobby groups attempted to end the deal with Iran, writing “The Republican Jewish Coalition, whose board included Sheldon Adelson and Home Depot cofounder Bernie Marcus, immediately attacked Obama as ‘misguided’ and ‘giving cheer to Tehran’s rogue regime and causing alarm among our friends in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and most other Gulf States.’”
The Republican Jewish Coalition, the book noted, was joined by other Zionist lobby groups, such as The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) in trying to prevent U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
The authors wrote, “The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a heavy promoter of the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror before that, followed suit the next day, opposing the proposed deal as ‘a gamble on Western optimism.’ It was joined by a shadowy pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). ‘Tonight’s events are a disappointment for those of us who have worked to pressure Iran’s economy and impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran—the same sanctions that brought the regime to the negotiating table,’ its statement said. ‘Those touting this agreement do not appear to understand the fragility of sanctions, or the dangers of rolling them back and easing the economic pressure on Iran.’”
These groups, the book noted, were “funded by a small, overlapping set of donors with deep ties to Israel”.
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) it noted, “according to a 2013 document, received $500,000 from the Adelsons that year alone. Another $843,000 was contributed by a series of trusts controlled by billionaire precious metals speculator Thomas Kaplan, a citizen of the United States, France, the Republic of the Seychelles, and the United Arab Emirates, and his wife, Daphne Recanati, the daughter of Israeli financier Leon Recanati.”
The book noted that Thomas Kaplan told former Israeli Prime Minister and Jeffery Epstein’s Israeli handler Ehud Barak that “A nuclear Iran ‘represents a psychological threat that will have untold consequences on the Israeli economy and population flows’” in a leaked email.
As for the FDD, the book noted that it was “formed originally in 2001 as Emet (‘Truth’ in Hebrew) with a mission that included ‘provid[ing] education to enhance Israel’s image in North America.’ That name and mission, while submitted to the IRS in its founding documents, was nowhere to be found on its website. By the time the JCPOA debate was occurring, the group had also removed evidence of its advocacy for the Iraq War. Articles with statements including ‘that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction cannot be seriously doubted’ and language claiming ‘we know Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction’ were long removed, focusing attention on the alleged threat posed by Iran instead. Al Jazeera hidden cameras captured Sima Vaknin-Gil, the director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, speaking in blunt terms about Israel’s relationship with the FDD. ‘We have FDD. We have others working on’ projects including ‘data gathering, working on activist organizations, money trail,’ said Vaknin-Gil to an audience of American pro-Israel advocates in 2016. ‘This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best’”.
The Israel Lobby cutout, the book noted, “wasn’t just a producer of research papers and op-eds advocating against the JCPOA and for more sanctions and military threats against Iran. It also served as an important element of an echo chamber informing the public and Congress about Middle East policy,” noting that, “In an eighteen-month period preceding and immediately following the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, FDD staff and fellows provided congressional testimony opposing the deal seventeen times.”
The FDD was also primarily funded by Israel’s first billionaire donors, the book noted, writing “a misfiled document revealed that Bernie Marcus contributed $10.7 million, Paul Singer contributed $3.6 million, and Sheldon Adelson contributed $1.5 million in a five-year period ending in 2011. The three men were the three largest donors to the FDD in that time frame, the only period in which the group’s top donors have been disclosed.”
Meanwhile, the book documented how AIPAC’s messaging became more explicitly anti-Iran.
In 2010, the book noted, “AIPAC-contracted telemarketers were directed to say: ‘Iran is rejecting international calls to end its nuclear pursuit.’”
It added, “By 2014, the emphasis had shifted to warning about Iranian president Rouhani’s diplomatic engagement with US and European diplomats. The script read: ‘Regional dangers continue to grow for Israel. In Iran, President Rouhani’s rhetoric continues to charm world leaders, while the regime has not slowed its nuclear pursuits.’”
This was ramped up further in the following years.
The book noted that, “the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon continued to appear in AIPAC’s fundraising scripts even as the group worked against the JCPOA—a joint agreement with the US and other world leaders that sought to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment with verifiable safeguards and put in place provisions to extend Iran’s breakout time to produce enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear weapon from two to three months to one year or more” with the 2015 AIPAC script reading, “Iran continues to pose a grave threat of attaining a nuclear weapons capability”.
The book added that, “After the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, the fundraising scripts became even more vivid in the violence and existential threats described and either ignored or stood in direct opposition to the foreign policy agenda undertaken by the Obama administration. The 2016 script read: ‘… and Iran continues to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the U.S.’”
The authors added that, “Iran had not in fact developed such a missile”.
While the Zionist lobby did not initially get its way on the Iran deal, the book documents how the lobby made inroads with the Trump 2016 campaign, eventually getting him to rip up the deal.
The book meticulously documented how Trump in 2016 changed his platform after massive funding from pro-Israel donors.
“ (Sheldon) Adelson told reporters that Trump ‘will be good for Israel.’ Trump’s support for Israel was not mentioned in Adelson’s endorsement of Trump later that month in a Washington Post op-ed. But he once again acknowledged the centrality of US policy in the Middle East as a driving motivation for his political engagement, characterizing himself as ‘hawkish on Israel’ and having ‘waged battles’ over the Iran nuclear deal, ‘an issue of paramount importance to me personally and to many others around the world.’ In an email sent to fellow Republican Jewish leaders, Adelson urged them to support the presumptive nominee, saying he was convinced Trump would be a ‘tremendous president when it comes to the safety and security of Israel.’”, the book noted.
The book noted how Trump changed his 2016 platform after major donations from the Israel Lobby, writing, “The Adelsons and Marcus quickly came around, donating $25 million and $7 million, respectively, to support Trump’s general election candidacy. That flow of support from the pro-Israel billionaires came alongside a flurry of movement from the campaign to bring Trump’s platform in line with that of his new biggest donors. Just before the July GOP convention and Trump’s formal nomination, the Republican Platform Committee unanimously omitted any reference to a two-state solution from the party’s Israel planks. Trump met with Netanyahu in September and promised that, if elected president, he would ‘recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.’ The campaign reported that Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace between Israelis and Palestinians required ‘the Palestinians [to] renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State.’ Six days before the election, Trump’s ‘Israel Advisory Committee’ published a position paper proposing a break from the Israel policy of previous Republican and Democratic administrations, celebrating ‘the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel’ based on ‘shared values of democracy, freedom of speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all citizens to pursue their dreams.’”
The book added, “As for ‘never Trump’ pro-Israel donors who held out on endorsing Trump, even Paul Singer, who had warned that Trump’s policies would lead to a ‘widespread global depression,’ ultimately made amends with the new president-elect. Singer donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural committee.”
Trump, during his first term, enacted every policy these pro Israel donors demanded, including by ripping up the Iran deal, the book noted, writing, “Trump, in his first term, enacted a series of wish-list items for Israel, including a unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and, at the repeated urging of the Adelsons, the promised move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.” (Emphasis: Mine)
The destruction of U.S. diplomacy with Iran, bought by Zionist donors like Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Bernie Marcus and Paul Singer, eventually led to the U.S. war on Iran for Israel.
By Normalizing Ties With Israel, Delcy Rodriguez Betrays The Bolivarian Revolution
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Delcy Rodriguez, the “interim president” of Venezuela installed by the United States after kidnapping President Nicolas Maduro, is destroying and spitting in the face of the political revolution started by Hugo Chavez’s election in 1999, dubbed the Bolivarian Revolution after Simon Bolivar.
Anti-imperialism was always at the forefront of Hugo Chavez’s and Nicolas Maduro’s agenda, first and foremost, solidarity with the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation.
In 2009, after Israel’s bombardment in Gaza dubbed Operation Cast Lead, which killed 1,400 Palestinians – including 300 children, and which a UN inquiry called “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez severed “ties with Israel in protest against its war in the Gaza Strip”, with Chavez saying, “Venezuela … has decided to break off diplomatic relations with the state of Israel given the inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people”.
Throughout his presidency, Chavez continued to end all diplomatic relations with Israel and stood by the besieged Palestinians, saying in 2009, “It is not that the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They are doing it openly. Remember the last Israeli aggression against Gaza. What is it if not genocide? I think that’s hard to believe. It was a savage attack against an innocent people. The Israelis were seeking an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians. I think we must condemn this aggression and impose sanctions against Israel”.
This solidarity was continued by his successor, Nicolas Maduro, who, as the Miriam Adelson-funded Israel Hayom newspaper complained, “continued the anti-Israeli line with even more intensity.”
Palestine was such an important cause for Maduro that he shouted “long live free Palestine!” as he cast his vote in the 2024 election.
Even as Trump was ramping up his campaign to kidnap Nicolas Maduro, he reiterated his support for the Palestinian cause in November of 2025, saying, “We will not abandon this sacred cause until the ultimate goal is achieved: Palestine will rise, free and independent. We will only reach real peace when justice is served for the crimes and genocide committed. Only then can we begin to recover from the rubble and devastation”.
For this reason, Israel – increasingly trying to spread its influence in South America – supported the U.S. regime change campaign in Venezuela.
Middle East Eye noted in 2019 that “Israel wants to see Maduro overthrown in Venezuela,” noting that “Solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination was at its height during the Chavez years up until today, with the leadership making outspoken criticism of Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 over its military campaign in Gaza”.
As Israel Hayom complained, “Venezuela, which previously maintained warm relations with Israel and even purchased security technologies from it, became a center of hostile propaganda toward Zionism and the Jewish state”.
Israel made connections with the CIA asset in the Venezuelan opposition, Maria Corina Machado, because, as Israel Hayom boasted, she “promises to change her country’s attitude toward Israel from one extreme to another, and doesn’t hide her sympathy toward us. In recent years, she spoke about her intention to establish Venezuela’s embassy location in Jerusalem and stood with the Jewish state after the October 7 massacre, while Maduro supported Hamas”.
Israel, however, seemed to have made the same deal with interim president Delcy Rodriguez.
Israel used the devastating earthquake in Venezuela as a opportunity to get the country to abandon it’s long held solidarity with the Palestinians, sending IDF militants to the country under the guise of helping rebuild from the devastation caused by the earthquake, who were welcomed and even praised by Delcy Rodriguez.
Benjamin Netanyahu praised the delegation for carrying out a “rare strategic objective by assisting an estranged government” with the goal of “restoring relationships”.
The Israeli newspaper Ynet boasted that “The dispatch of the Israeli delegation has already created a kind of diplomatic breakthrough, including the first phone call in years between a senior Venezuelan official and a senior Israeli representative. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil spoke with the head of the Israeli aid mission, Yoed Magen, Israel’s designated ambassador to Mexico, who also handles the Venezuela portfolio at the Foreign Ministry”.
Venezuela’s chief Rabbi, Yitzhak Cohen, who played a large role in bringing the Israeli delegation to Venezuela, hoped that this would lead to normalization of ties between Israel and Venezuela, saying, “We offered the president of Venezuela the possibility of having the Israeli delegation come to assist in the disaster. She gladly accepted our assistance and gave all the necessary approvals for the delegation’s arrival. This was the first step. Although there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, Israel took a wonderful step by providing humanitarian aid to Venezuela …We hope, and are almost certain, that this will move another step forward. There is no doubt that this was a moving gesture”.
Venezuelan political scientist Carlos Eduardo Pina argued that these moves were done to appease Israel and its lobby in the U.S., writing, “Maria Corina Machado, the leading opposition figure and Rodriguez’s main rival, has built a strong alliance with Israel over the years, especially with Prime Minister Netanyahu. If Rodriguez can win Netanyahu over at Machado’s expense, Machado could lose one of her most important sources of support, both internationally and in Washington, where pro-Israel lobbying networks hold significant influence. To this end, Rodriguez has adopted increasingly Israel-friendly positions while courting sectors of Venezuela’s Jewish community with strong ties to Israel”.
Israel’s goals seem to have succeeded in Venezuela, with the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela releasing a statement saying:
The Governments of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the State of Israel announce that, following the visit of the Israeli humanitarian delegation to Venezuela in response to the double earthquake that occurred on June 24, and in follow-up to discussions held between high-ranking officials of both countries, the two nations have agreed to allow the continuation of bilateral technical cooperation stemming from the emergency and recovery efforts following the double earthquake. Furthermore, the two nations agree to establish a coordination mechanism to facilitate the provision of consular services to their respective citizens residing in the other country, as needed. Both governments recognize the importance of the bond between the State of Israel and the Jewish community residing in Venezuela, which constitutes a significant historical bridge of friendship between the two countries.
Venezuelanalysis reported that this statement came after a meeting between Venezuelan foreign minister Félix Plasencia and Yitzhak Cohen, where Cohen “requested that Venezuela reestablish diplomatic ties with Israel.”
While Chavez cut off diplomatic relations with Israel over its 2009 slaughter in Gaza, Delcy Rodriguez had taken the first steps to normalize relations with Israel, and it continues its genocide in Gaza, expansion in the West Bank, and ethnic cleansing of Lebanon.
Israel seems to have gotten exactly what it wanted by supporting regime change in Venezuela.
Given Chávez and Maduro’s long-standing solidarity with Palestine, it is hard to see these moves as anything but a betrayal of the Bolivarian revolution.
US profits from seized Venezuelan oil tankers, sends them for scrap in India: Report
Press TV – August 11, 2026
The US government has quietly sold two oil tankers seized following its military aggression against Venezuela to Dubai-based vessel recycler Global Marketing Systems (GMS), with the vessels set to be dismantled in India.
The two tankers, the Era and Lileo, were purchased by GMS last month for an undisclosed sum, Lloyd’s List reported on Monday.
Both vessels had been seized by US authorities in January 2026 amid Washington’s military campaign against Venezuelan oil shipments.
The Era, formerly known as Marinera and Bella 1, and the Lileo, previously named Galileo and Veronica, are now due to be scrapped at shipbreaking yards in India.
“The US government has sold them to us and there was a court order authorizing the sales, but there are complexities, not least the fact that we weren’t really sure who previously owned them,” GMS CEO Anil Sharma told Lloyd’s List.
The sale comes amid a broader series of US military operations to intercept and seize oil tankers linked to Venezuelan oil shipments, actions that Caracas and other governments have condemned as acts of maritime piracy.
Venezuela formally complained to the UN Security Council following the seizure of a tanker in December 2025, noting that US forces boarded the vessel on the high seas, subduing and detaining its crew, and seizing a shipment of Venezuelan oil.
Iran has also condemned the US actions. Its embassy in Caracas described the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker as “piracy in the Caribbean Sea” and said the action violated international law, including the principles governing freedom of the seas and navigation.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who faces mounting scrutiny from legal experts over potential war crimes during Washington’s military campaign in Latin America, oversaw the seizure of one of the oil tankers.
The Era was seized in January 2026 after US Coast Guard and military personnel intercepted the Russian-flagged tanker in waters south of Iceland, following a weeks-long pursuit across the Atlantic. The vessel had previously evaded a US maritime blockade in the Caribbean aimed at restricting Venezuelan oil exports.
The Lileo was also seized in January, this time in the Caribbean Sea, as part of Washington’s broader campaign to intercept Venezuelan oil shipments following its military intervention in Venezuela.
US authorities seized as many as 10 oil tankers in the aftermath of the operation, according to reports.
The subsequent sale of the Era and Lileo for scrap means the vessels will not return to commercial service and will instead be dismantled at shipbreaking yards in India.
A Financial Times investigation published in July estimated that Washington has collected more than $13 billion from Venezuelan oil exports since taking control of the country’s oil sales in January, following the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro Moros.
The investigation found that only one transfer, worth $300 million, has been publicly recorded on a Venezuelan government website established to monitor oil revenues controlled by the United States.
Trump’s $23 billion ship will be outdated before it even hits water
In an era of cheap drones, the new battleship is overly reliant on expensive and highly vulnerable technology
By Dan Grazier | Responsible Statecraft | August 11, 2026
The first proposed Trump-class battleship now has a price tag: $23 billion.
This cost, as assessed by the Congressional Budget Office, will garner a lot of attention. But the primary concern for policymakers and citizens alike should be the complexity of the ship’s design.
The U.S. Navy has a poor shipbuilding record in the 21st century. The Zumwalt-class destroyer, the Littoral Combat Ship, and the Constellation-class frigate have been complete failures. The final verdict of the Ford-class aircraft carrier is not yet in, but when the ship’s crew can’t even rely on the sewage system to work properly, the case isn’t looking too good.
It becomes clear reading through the CBO’s report that Navy officials in Washington have learned nothing over the past 25 years from their shipbuilding mistakes. In typical Washington fashion, the new ship is being touted as “the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” as President Donald Trump put it. In practical terms, the ship will be armed with “antiair, land-attack, and antiship missiles, hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, large lasers, and a rail gun (a weapon that uses electromagnetic energy to fire nonexplosive projectiles at hypersonic speeds),” according to the CBO.
All of these systems will require a tremendous amount of electrical power to operate. To meet this challenge, the new ship will also be nuclear-powered. The addition of a nuclear reactor will dramatically increase both the cost and complexity of the ship’s construction.
The original sin of all the Navy’s 21st century shipbuilding failures is a lack of design discipline. The architects of each program attempted to incorporate every gadget the technologists could imagine, several of which (including cutting-edge rail guns) remain unproven to this day. Excess complexity drives up costs and delays delivery, often by years.
Officials compounded that essential mistake when they began building ships before the underlying technology had been developed. The practice of beginning construction before the development process ends is known as concurrency. When the overlap between manufacturing and development is too great, as it has been with acquisition programs like the Littoral Combat Ship and the USS Gerald R. Ford, costs rise and schedules slip because it becomes more difficult to incorporate the new technology into work that has already been completed.
A glance at America’s shipbuilding capacity suggests that the construction timeline for the battleship program is also unrealistic. Navy leaders plan to buy 15 of the new ships between 2028 and 2056. But naval construction is already years behind schedule.
The next Ford-class aircraft carrier, for example, is already five years late, yet the Pentagon hopes to assemble the new battleships at the same Newport News shipbuilding dock used to build aircraft carriers. The Navy’s current fleet of 289 ships is already far short of the legally required 355 ships. Attempting to build the largest and most complex surface warship in nearly a century hardly seems like the proper course of action to expand the fleet and alleviate the strain on the Navy’s already harried sailors.
The size of the fleet matters because it directly impacts the quality of life and service of the nation’s sailors. The U.S. Navy has played an integral role in maintaining freedom of navigation around the globe since the end of World War II. Having fewer ships in the fleet means that the existing ships and their crews must work longer and harder to meet the Navy’s operational demand. Since leaders in Washington show few signs of reducing the number of missions the Navy must perform, adopting a shipbuilding plan that will see the fleet continue to shrink for the foreseeable future makes little sense.
The fact that the battleship program is projected out over the next 30 years also deserves scrutiny. Instituting a warship program of this size to span three decades at a time when uncrewed vessels and anti-ship missiles are proliferating means that officials today believe a large surface warfare ship will remain viable throughout that timespan. That is a bold assumption to make. It is doubtful many people in 1996 would have anticipated the Ukrainians effectively denying the Russian fleet the use of the Black Sea with uncrewed vessels and shore-based missiles. A $23 billion American battleship will be an inviting target for submarines, anti-ship missiles, and hypersonic weapons.
The current National Security Strategy released in November 2025 calls for the United States to concentrate on defending the Western Hemisphere. Building the largest surface combatant ship since World War II, armed with conventional, hypersonic, and nuclear-tipped missiles, is hardly necessary to defend the seas close to home. Such a ship is designed specifically to project military power around the globe. The battleship plan provides more evidence that the national security establishment will do precisely what it wants to do, no matter what defense strategy the government adopts.
Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. His assignments in uniform included tours with 2nd Tank Battalion in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and 1st Tank Battalion in Twentynine Palms, California.
Scott Bessent’s Delusional Oil Pipe Dream to Defeat Iran
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 10, 2026
When U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told an interviewer this weekend that the Strait of Hormuz would “become irrelevant” within two years — with more than half the energy now crossing it rerouted through underground pipelines — he was indulging a pipe dream. Bessent fails to grasp that Iran’s ability to use the Strait of Hormuz as geopolitical leverage is not going to vanish if the Gulf arabs quickly build oil pipelines. It is true that capital hates chokepoints, and Gulf producers are indeed racing to build around one. Saudi Arabia is expanding its East-West Petroline, the UAE has leaned harder on its Fujairah bypass, and Iraq is dusting off long-dormant overland export corridors. Chevron is even studying a revived Haditha–Baniyas line from Iraq to the Syrian Mediterranean.
Although Bessent ‘s oil pipeline proposal sounded like a nifty way to neuter Iran, he fails to grasp the true economic importance of the Persian Gulf and the leverage that Iran will continue to have for years to come. Bessent’s framing treats Hormuz as an oil problem, and a pipeline network — however ambitious — solves an oil problem. But Hormuz is not merely the world’s most important oil chokepoint. It is the sole maritime exit for a cluster of specialized commodities that cannot be pumped through a pipe, cannot be quickly re-sourced elsewhere, and whose disruption is already inflicting measurable economic damage across food, semiconductors, and heavy industry. Building a crude bypass and declaring the strait “irrelevant” mistakes one throughput for all of them.
The evidence for that is not hypothetical. It is the record of the past five months.
The oil bypass math is already the easy part — and it still doesn’t close
Start with the commodity the pipelines are meant to address. Even here the substitution is incomplete. Roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude, condensate, and products normally transit Hormuz — about a fifth of global petroleum consumption. Existing bypass capacity totals somewhere around 4.7 million barrels per day. Closing that gap requires not one flagship pipeline but an entire redundant network, built through active or recently active conflict zones, over a period of years. Bessent’s own two-year horizon is optimistic against that backdrop, and it is the most favorable case, because crude is the one Hormuz cargo that pipelines are actually designed to carry.
Everything else produced in the Gulf are not cargo that can be carried by a pipeline, and these are critically important to the global economy.
LNG: No pipe runs from Ras Laffan to Tokyo
About a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas trade moves through Hormuz, overwhelmingly from Qatar, the second-largest LNG exporter on earth. When Iranian strikes damaged Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex — the single largest LNG export facility in the world — and QatarEnergy declared force majeure in early March, roughly 10 billion cubic feet per day of supply, about 20% of globally traded LNG, went offline. Kpler tanker data showed no laden LNG vessel crossing the strait for nearly two months.
The consequences landed fast and far from the Gulf. The World Bank’s natural gas price index jumped 24% in a single month. Europe’s benchmark is now projected to climb roughly 25% across 2026, because LNG frequently sets the marginal price there; Asia, which takes the overwhelming majority of Qatari cargoes, was hit hardest as buyers scrambled to replace contracted deliveries on the spot market.
Here is the part a pipeline cannot fix: LNG has no overland route out of Qatar. Liquefied gas is a seaborne product by definition — you liquefy it precisely because you cannot pipe it across oceans to Japan, South Korea, or India. And the one producer large enough to plug the gap, the United States, cannot. New American liquefaction terminals take years and billions to build; the EIA expected U.S. exports to rise by only a small fraction of the missing Qatari volumes, with meaningful new capacity trickling in through late 2026 at best. A crude bypass does nothing for the LNG buyer in Osaka. There is no bypass to build.
Urea and ammonia: the fertilizer shock that reaches every farm
The Gulf is not just an energy hub. It is one of the planet’s great fertilizer factories, and Hormuz is how those fertilizers reach the fields that depend on them. The Middle East supplies close to a quarter of global urea exports; by some measures roughly a third of world seaborne fertilizer trade was put at risk when the strait closed. Iran halted ammonia production; Qatar suspended urea, ammonia, and sulphur output after the Ras Laffan damage.
The price response was violent. Urea climbed above $850 per metric ton in April — up around 80% from February and the highest level since 2022. World urea prices roughly doubled at the peak. Ammonia jumped nearly 40% in weeks, and about 24% of all global ammonia trade normally passes through Hormuz. Fitch raised its 2026 ammonia and urea forecasts by around a quarter and warned nitrogen fertilizers would be the hardest hit of any product category.
And unlike a price chart, the downstream damage compounds. India — which sources roughly 80% of its ammonia from the Gulf — saw ammonia-based domestic production stall and lost hundreds of thousands of tons of monthly urea output as industrial gas was rationed. American farmers absorbed the shock at the worst possible moment, entering spring planting with fertilizer costs spiking and diesel above $5 a gallon. Because natural gas is around 80% of the cost of nitrogen fertilizer, the LNG disruption and the fertilizer disruption feed each other — a second-order effect no crude pipeline touches. When fertilizer gets scarce and expensive, the eventual bill is measured in crop yields and food prices, in countries that never bought a barrel of Gulf oil.
Sulphur and DAP: the quiet input behind the phosphate chain
Sulphur rarely makes headlines, which is exactly why its disruption is instructive. It is a byproduct of Gulf gas processing and a critical input for phosphate fertilizers and countless industrial processes. With Qatari sulphur output suspended and regional supply choked, prices roughly doubled since the start of the year. That fed straight into diammonium phosphate (DAP): DAP prices rose more than 10% in April on tightening supply and higher sulphur costs, compounded by China moving to restrict its own exports — China relies on the Middle East for roughly half its sulphur imports.
This is the pattern worth noticing. Hormuz disruption does not produce one clean shortage; it produces a cascade through interlinked chemistry — gas into ammonia, ammonia and sulphur into finished fertilizer, export bans stacked on top of physical shortfalls. A pipeline that moves crude oil intersects none of these chains.
Helium: the commodity with no substitute and no alternative exit
Helium is the sharpest illustration of Bessent’s blind spot, because for helium the pipeline argument does not merely fall short — it is categorically inapplicable.
Qatar supplies roughly a third of the world’s helium, extracted as a byproduct co-located with LNG processing at Ras Laffan. The March strikes and the strait’s closure took an estimated 30% of global helium production offline, with damage assessments suggesting some infrastructure could take years — not weeks — to fully restore. US distributors invoked force majeure, began rationing, prioritized healthcare customers, and layered on surcharges; spot prices spiked.
Helium cannot be synthesized. It is a finite, non-renewable gas with no substitute in its critical uses: semiconductor fabrication, advanced chip packaging, MRI machines, and the sealed interior of every high-capacity hard drive at a moment when AI-driven data-center demand is surging. Seagate and Western Digital reported full-year allocations and 20–30% price increases; South Korean chipmakers were reported to be running on roughly six months of inventory.
And every gram of Qatari helium leaves the country the same way: by ship, through Hormuz. There is no pipeline alternative, no overland route, no bypass — helium’s only exit from the world’s second-largest production hub is that one 33-kilometer-wide waterway. A network of crude pipelines could be completed tomorrow and it would not move a single liter of helium to a chip fab in Taiwan.
Why the framing matters
None of this means the bypass pipelines are a bad idea. Reducing the world’s dependence on a single crude chokepoint is prudent, and market-driven redundancy is exactly what one would want. Bessent is right that capital routes around risk, and that Tehran has accelerated its own strategic marginalization by weaponizing the strait.
But the claim that “the Strait of Hormuz will become irrelevant” is grossly misleading. The waterway’s true strategic weight comes from its role as the shared export gate for a bundle of commodities — LNG, urea, ammonia, sulphur, helium — that are seaborne by physics, concentrated in a handful of Gulf facilities, and impossible to re-source at speed. Each has been disrupted in the real world over the past five months, and each disruption has produced price shocks and downstream damage that a crude pipeline is powerless to prevent.
The current market underlines the point. As of early August, Brent was trading in the mid-$80s and climbing on Hormuz headlines, with a war-risk premium that has refused to deflate through months of on-again, off-again negotiation — the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been drawn down to its lowest level since the 1980s in the process. That premium reflects traders pricing the whole basket of what the strait carries, not just its barrels of crude. Until there is a plan for the LNG tanker, the ammonia cargo, the sulphur shipment, and the helium flask — none of which fits in a pipeline — Hormuz will remain very far from irrelevant.
A pipeline can carry crude. It cannot carry the rest of what Hormuz moves. And it is the rest that is quietly reshaping the global economy right now.
FDA’s botched review of Moderna’s flu mRNA vaccine
Investigation into clinical trial documents reveals the FDA used statistical sleight of hand to make a serious safety signal in Moderna’s flu vaccine disappear
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD · MD REPORTS · August 10, 2026
When the FDA licensed Moderna’s new mRNA flu vaccine last week, legacy media coverage focused almost exclusively on efficacy.
The pivotal trial reported that the vaccine was “26.6% more effective” than a conventional flu vaccine at preventing protocol-defined influenza-like illness.
What received far less scrutiny was a much more serious problem in the trial data published in The New England Journal of Medicine—much of it relegated to an appendix behind a paywall.
An analysis of that appendix alongside the FDA’s own briefing document exposes clear regulatory malfeasance.
A statistically significant safety signal from the pivotal trial was systematically diluted until it disappeared from the official story.
The safety signal
Moderna’s pivotal Phase 3 trial (P304) enrolled roughly 40,000 adults aged 50 and older, randomised 1:1 to either the company’s mRNA-1010 vaccine or a traditional trivalent flu vaccine.
This study evaluated an “optimised” version of Moderna’s vaccine after earlier versions produced disappointing efficacy results.
Even with this updated formulation, the headline “26.6% relative efficacy” figure was misleading. In absolute terms, the vaccine reduced the risk of illness by just 0.8%.
Most concerning, however, were the serious adverse event (SAE) data.
The six-month data show that 449 participants in the mRNA group experienced at least one SAE, compared with 389 in the conventional group—an excess of 60 people.
So, while the pivotal trial showed there were 4 fewer influenza hospitalisations in the mRNA group, 60 additional people experienced an SAE.
SAEs are not mild events—they are usually severe enough to require hospitalisation, threaten life, cause significant disability, or result in death.
The imbalance of SAEs in Moderna’s pivotal trial was statistically significant—meaning it was unlikely to be a random fluke.
Yet in the briefing documents presented to the FDA’s advisory committee, VRBPAC, the agency characterised SAEs as “balanced.”
So how did the FDA make the SAE imbalance disappear?
Making serious adverse events disappear
The short answer is that the FDA used pooled data that obscured the safety signal.
Specifically, the agency relied on Moderna’s own “Integrated Safety Summary,” which combined data from four separate Phase III trials (P301, P302, P303 and P304), involving nearly 72,000 participants.
Once the pivotal trial P304 was combined with the other trials, the SAE rate became 3.1% in the mRNA group versus 2.9% in the comparator group—allowing the FDA to state that the rates were “balanced.”
Pooling data across clinical trials is common when regulators are looking for rare events. But the four trials Moderna pooled were very different in many aspects.
They tested different mRNA vaccine formulations against different flu vaccines—standard-dose and high-dose, quadrivalent and trivalent—across different age groups and countries, with follow-up ranging from six months to a year.
When these disparate trials were combined into a single analysis, the safety signal that stood out in the large pivotal trial was diluted.
The FDA accepted the approach—despite being aware of the problem.
In an appendix to its own briefing document, the FDA acknowledged that differences between the trials could produce safety variations “not fully captured by pooled analyses”—but proceeded anyway.
Table 6 of the FDA’s own review makes the switch even clearer (see below).
For the first 28 days after vaccination, when serious adverse events were still balanced between the groups, the agency reported safety results from the pivotal P304 trial alone (purple box).
But as more SAEs accumulated over the following months, a statistically significant imbalance emerged.
Instead of reporting those longer-term results from P304 in the same way, the FDA switched to Moderna’s pooled analysis (red box), where the signal was diluted enough for the agency to continue describing the rates as “balanced.”
The pooled analysis also obscured a concerning pattern in all-cause mortality.
In the pivotal trial P304, there were 40 deaths in the mRNA arm versus 34 in the comparator arm.
In the preceding trial P303, deaths were consistently higher across all three mRNA sub-studies:
- Sub-study 1 (mRNA vs Standard Trivalent): 5 deaths in the mRNA-1010 arm vs. 1 death in the comparator arm (5 vs 1).
- Sub-study 2 (mRNA vs High-Dose Trivalent): 3 deaths in the mRNA-1010 arm vs. 2 deaths in the comparator arm (3 vs 2).
- Sub-study 3 (mRNA vs Standard Quadrivalent): 3 deaths in the mRNA-1010 arm vs. 1 death in the comparator arm (3 vs 1).
Notably, in Sub-study 1, Moderna’s own trial investigators assessed one of the five deaths in the mRNA group as caused by the vaccine—the same product that has now been licensed.
Together, these numbers raise serious concerns about a possible excess in mortality in the mRNA groups—a pattern the FDA failed to highlight.
One rule for efficacy, another for safety
The FDA’s handling of efficacy reveals an even more striking double standard.
For efficacy, the agency relied strictly on study P304—the large pivotal trial testing the exact formulation submitted for licensure.
Earlier trials of Moderna’s vaccine had produced weaker efficacy results—and in at least one case, negative efficacy. Had the FDA pooled those trials for efficacy, the “26.6% efficacy” figure would almost certainly have been substantially lower.
But, as noted above, when the pivotal trial produced an unfavourable safety result, the FDA did the opposite—it pooled the data.
One approach maximised the efficacy. The other diluted the safety concerns.
Who is protecting the public?
On the surface, the FDA says Moderna’s flu mRNA vaccine is “safe and effective.”
Dig deeper, and the pivotal trial shows a statistically significant excess of participants experiencing SAEs.
Dig deeper still, and you discover the statistical trickery Moderna used—and the FDA accepted—to make the SAE signal disappear.
This brings us back to a fundamental question I have raised over years of reporting on regulatory failure.
When the FDA accepts the manufacturer’s trial design, adopts its data analyses, and rubber-stamps statistical methods that dilute a safety signal, who is actually protecting the public from harm?
Iran’s New Demands /Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 10, 2026
Iran has put US ‘on its heels’, Washington has no cards: Experts
Al-Mayadeen | August 10, 2026
Iran believes it has fundamentally altered the balance of power with the United States and now has a narrow opportunity to convert its position into lasting strategic and economic gains, Johns Hopkins University Professor Vali Nasr argued in an interview on Switzerland with Tom Switzer.
Speaking alongside University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer, Nasr said Washington has struggled to accept how dramatically its position has changed following the prolonged war on Iran, particularly as Tehran retains leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. The interview was conducted by host Tom Switzer, who introduced Nasr as a leading Iran expert and Mearsheimer as a political scientist.
“There’s a consensus that they have defeated the superpower, at least put it on its heels,” Nasr said of the view inside Iran, arguing that Tehran sees little reason to moderate its position while it holds the advantage.
Iran sees narrow window to press advantage
Nasr rejected arguments circulating in Washington that Tehran is “overplaying its hand,” saying such assessments reflected disbelief at the extent to which the balance had shifted.
“In reality, Iran is not overplaying its hands. It’s just playing its hand,” he said.
According to Nasr, Iranian policymakers believe they have a limited period in which to secure the maximum possible strategic advantage.
“They think they have a narrow window to get the maximum amount of strategic advantage from having turned the table on the US,” he said, adding that Iranian leaders would consider it a major mistake not to press their advantage while Washington remains on the defensive.
That calculation extends to sanctions relief, frozen Iranian assets, compensation, and Iran’s position in the Strait of Hormuz. Nasr described Tehran’s approach as accepting immediate economic hardship in exchange for potentially much greater long-term gains.
Mearsheimer: US has ‘no choice’
Mearsheimer offered an even sharper assessment, arguing that Washington no longer possesses an effective means of forcing Tehran to abandon its position over the Strait.
Asked why US President Donald Trump would accept an arrangement under which Iran exercises substantial control over passage through Hormuz, Mearsheimer replied, “It’s very simple, Tom. He has no choice. He lost the war. This is a devastating defeat for the United States.”
He added that Trump “has no cards here,” arguing that Washington’s principal threat — further military escalation — had become increasingly difficult to carry out.
According to Mearsheimer, the United States faces both depleted munitions stocks and resistance from Gulf allies fearful that another escalation would trigger Iranian attacks on oil infrastructure, desalination facilities, and other critical installations.
Weapons shortages expose limits of US campaign
Nasr similarly argued that Washington’s weapons shortages had sharply reduced its ability to continue the campaign.
“It’s clear that the US doesn’t have the munitions, either offensive munitions or defensive munitions to keep bombing Iran,” he said, arguing that another month of fighting ultimately left Iran stronger and Washington weaker.
Mearsheimer said US military leaders had warned Trump before the war about limited stocks and the dangers of a prolonged confrontation. He argued that a major factor behind the end of the 40-day air campaign was that Washington was “running out of munitions.”
Nasr said the implications reach beyond West Asia, arguing that China and Russia would draw conclusions from the United States’ difficulty rapidly replacing sophisticated weapons during a prolonged war.
Distrust shapes Tehran’s negotiating position
Nasr stressed that Iran’s negotiating posture is also being driven by deep distrust of Trump and Washington.
He cited Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, attacks launched while negotiations were underway, and what Tehran viewed as Washington’s failure to uphold subsequent understandings.
Trump has created “such distrust about himself with Iranians” that even accepting Tehran’s terms might no longer be enough without guarantees that Washington would implement an agreement, Nasr said.
That distrust, he argued, explains why Iran wants concessions delivered upfront rather than postponed to future negotiations.
The earlier June 17 memorandum had envisaged reopening the Strait, lifting oil sanctions, and establishing a ceasefire that also covered Lebanon, while wider sanctions, reparations, and frozen assets would be addressed later.
Nasr said Tehran concluded that Washington subsequently undermined that arrangement, including its provisions related to Lebanon, reinforcing the view that Iran should secure tangible benefits before relinquishing leverage.
‘Even bigger defeat for Israel’
Both scholars also framed the outcome as a major strategic setback for “Israel”.
Mearsheimer described the result as a “humiliating defeat” for Washington before adding, “I believe it’s an even bigger defeat for Israel.”
He argued that Israeli officials were reluctant to acknowledge “the extent to which Iran has defeated not just the United States, but Israel,” predicting that both “Israel” and its supporters in Washington would seek to undo any agreement favorable to Tehran in the future.
Nasr later argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “overreached in Lebanon and Iran,” describing them as wars “Israel” could not win and saying “Israel” had been “strategically defeated”.
For Nasr, the larger consequence is a regional order increasingly different from the one Washington sought to impose. Iran, he argued, now sees an opportunity not simply to end the current confrontation, but to use the outcome to reduce the US military threat around its borders, ease its economic isolation and consolidate its position as a major regional power.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- Fuel Crisis Deepens: Pakistan Warns Tanker Attack in Red Sea Would Be an ‘Act of War’
- ‘Bucha massacre’ a false flag orchestrated by UK – Moscow
- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- If Americans Knew
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- Jewish Supremacist Manufacturing a Civilizational Threat to License Bigotry
- US bans Palestinian president from speaking at the UN
- Israeli Forces Detain Journalist Alaa al-Rimawi amid Widespread West Bank Raids
- Even a pro-Israel Congress member has put a hold on 40,000 one-ton bombs to Israel
- As Gaza crumbles, Israel preps new ground invasion – Daily Update
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Trump’s govt makes ‘treasonous’ claim of weapons shortages
- Palestinian-American Journalist Naqaa Hamed Imprisoned by Israeli Forces After Settlers Targeted Her
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 