‘Medically Reckless’: AAP Pushes Mental Health Screenings for Kids as Young as 6 Months Old
‘Parents must know they have the right to refuse these screenings’
By Jill Erzen | The Defender | August 27, 2025
Children as young as 6 months old should begin regular screenings for mental or developmental issues at every well-child visit, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said in a clinical report released Aug. 25.
Critics of the report fear the recommendations will lead to misdiagnosing and further overmedicating children.
“It is alarming that pressure is being put on pediatricians by the AAP to actively look for signs of depression in a 2-year-old,” Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT, told The Defender.
Pushing mental health screening for children leads to the expectation of psychiatric problems being woven into standards of care, said Robert Whitaker, author of “Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.”
“And the screening instruments the pediatricians will employ will have been constructed to identify a certain percentage of children as being in need of treatment,” he said.
The AAP report, published online in the journal Pediatrics, recommends that mental health screening begin at 6 months old and continue as part of well-child visits at ages 1, 2 and 3. After age 3, screening would continue annually.
The report said as many as 1 in 5 children in the U.S., including kids as young as 2, have mental or behavioral issues such as depression, anxiety, ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) or suicidal thoughts.
However, studies show mental health issues are commonly misdiagnosed. Depression has been falsely diagnosed 66% of the time, and generalized anxiety disorder has been incorrectly assessed 71% of the time.
“Parents should be more than just skeptical,” said Whitaker. “They should be alarmed by this push for ‘early detection.’ Screening of children, starting when they are very young, will of course lead a significant percentage to be diagnosed with one disorder or another.”
That diagnosis then “serves to pathologize the child, and that diagnosis may stick to the child for years, possibly through childhood and into adulthood,” he said. And a diagnosis “often will lead to a prescription for a psychiatric drug, and the scientific evidence on this is quite clear: over the long term, this will harm the child.”
Whitaker added:
“Or to put it another way, while screening and early detection is presented to the public as an effort to help the child, in reality it serves as an assault on the child’s right to be — to grow up without being tagged as ‘abnormal’ and forced to take a drug that will change the child’s capacity to experience the world.”
Screening toddlers for psychiatric disorders is ‘medically reckless’
The AAP claims rates of mental, emotional and behavioral problems in the U.S. are rising, and early detection will lead to intervention.
However, an August 2022 study in Preventive Medicine concluded that screening adolescents for depression does not reduce their treatment for suicidal behaviors.
A 2017 review found no evidence that screening children improves mental health outcomes, but instead raises the risk of potential harm and wasted resources.
“Screening babies, toddlers and schoolchildren for psychiatric disorders is medically reckless,” said Jan Eastgate, president of Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) International, a mental health industry watchdog.
She added:
“The questionnaires are based on a subjective and unscientific diagnostic system that pathologizes normal childhood behavior. Instead of helping families, they funnel children into a pipeline of psychiatric drugging — substances that can be addictive, damage the heart, and even drive them to suicide.”
The AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., stated that pediatricians are best equipped to work with families to identify issues early and provide children with the necessary help.
The AAP is also a lobbying organization. It spent between $748,000 and $1.18 million annually over the previous six years to advocate for its members, according to Open Secrets.
Some of the AAP’s biggest financial contributions come from major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Pfizer.
In January 2024, an AAP study published in Pediatrics found that more children were being subjected to restraint drugs — antipsychotics used to sedate — because more children were being admitted to mental health facilities.
During the 2016-2021 study period, the analysis found a 141% increase in the use of restraint drugs overall, and longer inpatient stays. Pharmacological restraints tend to be used with greater frequency on autistic children, low-income children and children of color.
According to the mail-order pharmacy Express Scripts, prescriptions for antidepressants for teenagers increased 38% from 2015-2019.
The AAP has been diagnosing and medicating children for decades, and the data show it doesn’t benefit children, Whitaker said.
He added:
“Early detection will just amplify the harm that is already being done to so many children by diagnosis plus drug treatment.
“What we should be doing if so many of our children are struggling, starting at an early age, is fixing the environment for raising children in our country. The children’s struggles don’t tell of a problem within the child, but within our society, and diagnosing the child just puts the blame inside the child.
“This promotion of early detection. … It’s an assault on our children.”
‘Alarming list of serious side effects’
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a first-line medication for children diagnosed with moderate to severe depression and anxiety. However, these medications carry a black box warning for a potential, though low, increased risk of suicidal thoughts, according to the AAP’s webpage, Antidepressants: Pediatric Mental Health Minute Series.
“SSRIs have an alarming list of serious side effects, the most egregious of which might be serotonin syndrome, which can cause death,” Seneff said. SSRIs raise levels of serotonin — a hormone and neurotransmitter that regulates mood.
While common side effects of SSRIs include diarrhea, headache, sleepiness and weight gain, the medications are also associated with serious adverse events, including heart rhythm changes, bleeding and thoughts of suicide or self-harm.
The risks of prescribing antidepressants are greater in children than in adults, Seneff said:
“A child’s developing brain will respond to these drugs in unpredictable ways. Early exposure to SSRIs could lead to permanent but currently unknown disruptions in brain development. We should rather be devoting our efforts to figuring out why so many kids are so emotionally disturbed today.”
Studies show benefits don’t outweigh risks
A 2025 study examined the link between antidepressant medications and fatal heart events. Researchers reviewed the death records of every adult ages 18-90 living in Denmark in 2010. In all age groups, the longer people used antidepressants, the more likely they were to die from sudden cardiac death.
In June 2022, the International Journal of Risk Safety Medicine published a study raising concerns about the first U.S.-approved SSRI antidepressant, fluoxetine. The authors reviewed several core studies used as the basis for the drug’s approval, and found that “the two pivotal trials showed that fluoxetine is unsafe and ineffective.”
Fluoxetine is the only SSRI antidepressant approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating major depression in patients as young as 8 years old. Yet, the FDA warns that children treated with antidepressants should be closely observed for agitation, irritability, suicidality and unusual changes in behavior.
The benefits of SSRIs have not been shown to outweigh the risks.
In 2022, FDA researchers published an extensive review of antidepressant studies in the BMJ. In total, the data from 1979-2016 covered 73,388 patients with diagnosed depression.
The analysis found that antidepressants outperformed placebo in just 15% of patients, and the benefit was almost entirely limited to people with the most severe forms of depression. For everyone else, the improvement was likely due to belief and expectation, not the drug itself.
The AAP recommendation for mental health screening was announced just weeks after Illinois became the first state to mandate mental health screenings for students in grades 3-12.
The Illinois law, set to take effect in the 2027-2028 school year, requires schools to conduct self-screenings annually using either digital or paper forms.
CCHR International said such subjective screening has shown an 84% “false positive” rate that could lead to teens being prescribed antidepressants, which in turn have been linked to an increase in suicide and/or acts of violence.
The source of such screening questionnaires can also be suspect, according to CCHR International.
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was first developed in 2001 and administered as a universal intervention in high schools to identify and treat depression, according to CCHR International. It was developed through a grant from Pfizer, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline).
In 2010, the company made both its PHQ-9 and General Anxiety Disorder questionnaire available to primary care doctors “without copyright restriction and at no charge.” Prescriptions of sertraline jumped 33%, from almost 29 million prescriptions in 2004 to over 38 million in 2020.
“Parents must know they have the right to refuse these screenings,” Eastgate said. She added:
“Signing an ‘Opt-Out’ form is essential to protect their child from being falsely labeled with a mental disorder and drugged. Informed consent belongs to parents — not to a psychiatric screening checklist that has no scientific foundation and is often developed by pharmaceutical interests.”
Related articles in The Defender
How the American Academy of Pediatrics Betrayed Children Everywhere
By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | August 25, 2025
The prime directive of Western medicine, its golden rule, is expressed by the Latin maxim primum non nocere – first, do no harm. Unfortunately, the Covid era taught us that from the patient’s point of view, a better motto for our times might be caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.
Every medical student is taught that, first and foremost, they should not cause harm to their patients, and every doctor is familiar with this maxim. It is echoed in the Hippocratic Oath, and it forms the basis for the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
This rule, and the core tenets of medical ethics that it underpins, were all abandoned during the Covid era. They were replaced with a brutal, inhumane, and unethical martial-law-as-public-health approach to medicine. The results were unconstitutional lockdowns, prolonged school closures, suppression of early treatment, mandated vaccinations, and silencing of dissenting views. These abuses were justified by constant propaganda and lies from public health authorities, the medical establishment, the mainstream media, and medical professional associations.
Enter the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the largest professional association for pediatricians in the United States. Nearly one hundred years old, the AAP’s motto is “Dedicated to the Health of All Children.” But as with so much of the medical establishment, the Covid era revealed that the AAP has abandoned its stated mission, and in the process, it has betrayed children everywhere.
During the Covid era, no group was harmed more – or more unnecessarily – than children, who lost multiple years of education, socialization, and normal growth and development. Many millions of kids also received the fraudulently tested, toxic, experimental mRNA-based injections that were coercively imposed upon the population at large. Countless children have been harmed or killed by these products, with myocarditis being only the most universally acknowledged of the many toxicities associated with the shots.
Adding insult to injury, it was known from the beginning of the pandemic that the gain-of-function-produced SARS-CoV-2 virus affected children very mildly, rarely causing severe illness, and almost never killing them. Even at the height of the pandemic, an article in the preeminent journal Nature described pediatric Covid deaths as “incredibly rare.” A very large population-based Korean study from 2023 found the case-fatality rate in children from Covid to be well under 1 death in every 100,000 cases.
If no segment of the population was harmed more egregiously than children during the Covid era, few medical organizations betrayed their patient population more thoroughly than the American Academy of Pediatrics.
While the AAP has for many years taken questionable stances on a variety of issues, including the ever-enlarging pediatric vaccine schedule, “gender reassignment,” and others, at one early point during Covid, the AAP did attempt to advocate appropriately in the interest of children. It didn’t last long, however, and a review of this incident shows how the AAP, like so many other medical professional organizations, effectively sold its soul during Covid.
Summer 2020: The AAP Changes Its Tune on In-School Learning
From mid-March 2020, when the Covid lockdowns began, until the end of that school year in June, most American schoolchildren had been kept completely out of school. On July 9, 2020, the AAP released a statement arguing forcefully for the return of American schoolchildren back:
The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.
The July AAP statement went on to say that school closure “places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality.” It went even further to state that:
… the preponderance of evidence indicates that children and adolescents are less likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have severe disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection.
All of these claims the AAP made in July 2020 were known to be true to those who did the proper research (as the AAP apparently had done), and they have been repeatedly and definitively confirmed in the following years.
I was acutely aware of that July 9, 2020, AAP statement. I used it as an important resource in my own advocacy during the summer of 2020 to try to get schools reopened for full-time learning in New York State by the fall. The July AAP document was a well-researched, well-constructed, and well-argued advocacy tool that supported all children’s best interests.
So far, so good. Very soon thereafter, however, the AAP shamefully succumbed to pressure from public health officials, teachers’ unions, and others pushing for continued school closures. By August 19, 2020, with school reopening imminent, the AAP suddenly “revised” their recommendations. The AAP dramatically changed its tune, stating that they would go along with whatever measures public health officials decreed:
… many schools where the virus is widespread will need to adopt virtual lessons and [AAP] is calling for more federal funding to support both models.
“This is on us – the adults – to be doing all the things public health experts are recommending to reduce the spread of the virus,” said AAP President Sara “Sally” H. Goza, M.D., FAAP.
In an act of cowardice and dereliction of duty, the AAP surrendered. It abandoned the strong and sound advocacy for normalizing children’s education contained in its July document. As a physician actively following the issues of the day surrounding Covid and publicly fighting for school reopening, I can testify that nothing changed regarding our knowledge of the virus that justified the AAP’s abdication of its responsibility to children. In fact, multiple foreign countries had already returned children to school without ill effect. The AAP’s capitulation significantly undermined school reopening efforts, especially in Blue states.
The AAP’s sudden and craven volte-face regarding in-school learning was just one of many disgraceful acts committed by medical associations during the Covid era, and it acted to the severe harm of schoolchildren across the nation. Millions of American schoolchildren continued to languish in “remote” or “hybrid” learning for the entire 2020-2021 school year. Many thousands simply dropped out of school, never to return.
In retrospect, the AAP cannot claim that they “didn’t know” enough to push for school reopening. Their July 2020 document proves they knew the correct course of action – before caving in to the establishment’s false narrative, and then subsequently devolving into just one more shameless shill organization, pushing for the mass inoculation of children with the toxic Covid mRNA injections.
Why would the AAP have done such a thing?
Money, for one thing. And plenty of it.
The AAP’s Federal Funding Windfall During Covid
As the Covid vaccine push intensified, the AAP became one of the trusted legacy medical associations that was handsomely rewarded to “push vaccines and combat ‘Misinformation’.” By 2023, the year for which data is most available, the AAP was absolutely raking it in.
As journalist Michael Nevradakis explains:
AAP… received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024. Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, [and] develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network.
In summary: in July 2020, the AAP ever-so-briefly and correctly sided with the lockdown dissenters, in service of its self-proclaimed motto to serve “the health of all children.” But by mid-August, the AAP switched sides and subsequently got a massive payout to do so. In fiscal 2023 alone, the AAP was receiving $35 million of tax money, much of it directly tied to pushing the Covid mRNA shots in children and to silence dissenters, whom it knew were telling the truth.
Unfortunately, this is unsurprising. Years before Covid, the AAP had already morphed into a highly compromised organization, straying far from its stated goal of being “dedicated to the health of all children.”
The Dinosaurs Sell Themselves to Survive
The business model for the old establishment medical professional organizations, like the AAP, is a dinosaur. The value of paid membership to these organizations has disappeared over the years, causing income from membership fees to fall. Individual paid subscriptions to their flagship journals have nosedived as well. Their financial survival increasingly relies upon Big Pharma largesse and, as we saw above for the AAP during Covid, government payouts.
In return for Big Pharma and government money, these professional organizations function less and less as champions for their professional members and their patients. They become mouthpieces for government initiatives and advertisers for Pharma. If you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor, they have become a strange species of dinosaur-prostitutes.
The AAP in particular is deeply tied to and heavily subsidized by Big Pharma, especially in the area of vaccine promotion.
Starting with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which effectively eliminated tort liability for vaccine manufacturers, the CDC pediatric vaccine schedule has ballooned from 7 vaccines in 1985 to 23 vaccines (and over 70 total doses!) in 2024. Since then, the AAP has largely been in the vaccine promotion business.
In accordance with the CDC vaccine schedules, the Federal government purchases huge quantities of the recommended vaccines from pharmaceutical companies. The shots are promoted to the public and to physicians through well-paid organizations like the AAP, and administered by pediatricians, many of whom receive payment – essentially kickbacks – to do so. Every step of the way, palms are greased.
As a result, American children have become what Dr. Meryl Nass calls “a delivery system to transfer taxpayer funds to big pharmaceutical companies, via your child or grandchild’s arm.”
As HHS Secretary Kennedy recently noted, the AAP posts on its own website its financial indebtedness to its corporate “donors.” Lo and behold, the four top vaccine manufacturers for the products on the pediatric vaccine schedule – Merck, Pfizer, Moderna, and Sanofi – stand at the top of the AAP’s corporate “donor” list. (The total amounts of the payouts the AAP receives are not disclosed.)
The AAP, originally created a century ago to advocate for pediatricians and their patients, has devolved into an advertiser and lobbyist for the corporate interests that fund their operations. So much for “dedicated to the health of all children.”
The AAP Goes All-In Against Reform
Fast forward to the present. The second Trump Administration and its reconstituted Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., are attempting to implement much-needed reforms to the corrupt and thoroughly captured Federal regulatory systems for healthcare.
HHS has begun to review and revise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended vaccine schedules, including the pediatric schedule. As mentioned above, since the passage of the NCVIA, which provided broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, the pediatric schedule has exploded, from 7 recommended shots in 1986 to an incredible 23 in 2024. For over 3 decades, the AAP has agreed with the recommendations of the CDC with regard to the recommended pediatric vaccines, without argument.
Absolutely no cumulative safety testing for this bloated schedule has ever been performed, and products based on the highly controversial mRNA platform, including annual recommended shots for Covid, have recently been added to the schedule. The CDC pediatric schedule is much larger than those of most other developed countries, many of which boast significantly better pediatric (and general population) health than the United States.
Kennedy’s HHS replaced the members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that reviews vaccines for the schedules, due to documented conflicts of interest that many prior members were found to have.
In May 2025, Kennedy’s HHS announced changes to the Covid-19 vaccination recommendations for children. The changes are in fact modest. Regarding the Covid shots, CDC currently recommends “shared clinical decision-making” between parents and providers for healthy children ages 6 months to 17 years.
How has the American Academy of Pediatrics responded? With actions so blatantly pro-Pharma, and so spitefully anti-parent, anti-patient, and anti-child, that their August 2020 betrayal of schoolchildren seems like, well, child’s play in comparison.
On July 28, 2025, in its flagship journal Pediatrics, the AAP released a policy statement calling for a nationwide end to all religious and other nonmedical exemptions for all mandated vaccinations for children, announcing “The AAP advocates for the elimination of nonmedical exemptions from immunizations as contrary to optimal individual and public health.”
Note that the AAP calls for a blanket ban. It makes no distinction between different vaccines, different educational settings, or different reasons for seeking exemptions. According to the AAP, all mandated vaccines are equally essential to both “individual and public health.” All nonmedical exemptions are totally invalid.
The lead author of the policy statement, one Dr. Jesse Hackell, told MedpageToday that
“We recognize that excluding a child from public education does have problems, and yet, we reach the conclusion that, on balance, assuring the safety of the school and daycare environment outweighs that risk because there are other educational opportunities available.”
What an appalling shift in the AAP’s attitude toward in-school learning. What happened to their July 2020 stance, when barring kids from school “places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality?”
The AAP’s message to parents and children is crystal clear. They don’t give a damn about your beliefs, your personal autonomy, your Constitutional rights, or even your well-being. You want to go to school? Shut up, line up, and take the shots we tell you to take. Every last one of them. On August 19, 2025, the AAP released its own pediatric vaccination schedule, which is at variance with the Kennedy HHS’s current schedule. The AAP’s website states:
“The biggest difference between the AAP and CDC schedules is around COVID-19 vaccination. The CDC no longer recommends routine vaccination for healthy children, although children can get vaccinated after a conversation with their doctor. In contrast, the AAP recommends all young children ages 6-23 months get vaccinated.”
It is telling that after decades of placid agreement with the CDC as the pediatric vaccine schedule continually expanded, the AAP has decided to take the drastic step of releasing its own childhood vaccination schedule, at variance with the CDC’s, over the issue of “shared decision-making.” Apparently, only slavish adherence to mandatory vaccination suffices for the AAP.
This is the AAP’s stance, despite rapidly declining uptake of the Covid shots in the population, the miniscule risk of Covid to children, and the mountains of evidence building that demonstrate the toxicity of these shots. In addition to myocarditis, peer-reviewed studies are demonstrating numerous autoimmune and immune system toxicities in children receiving these shots. Michael Nevradakis lists some of these:
According to a peer-reviewed study published in Pediatric Rheumatology in May, children and adolescents who received at least one Covid-19 vaccine had a 23% higher risk of developing autoimmune disease compared to unvaccinated children.
A study published in the journal Immunity, Inflammation and Disease in April found that young adults who received a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine showed elevated spike protein production a year or more after vaccination — significantly longer than the spike protein was expected to remain in the body.Children ages 5-11 who received two doses of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine had heightened levels of a type of antibody suggestive of an altered immune system response one year after vaccination, according to a peer-reviewed study published last year in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
Regarding the Covid injections and the CDC vaccine schedule in general, the AAP holds a weak hand, and yet their leadership is going all-in anyway. The AAP’s insistence on annual Covid shots for children is absurd at best, and murderous at worst. As public relations, it appears arrogant, mercenary, and utterly tone deaf. Morally and ethically, it is indefensible.
The Betrayal Is Complete
The leadership at the American Academy of Pediatrics has apparently decided that they would rather torch any residual credibility on the altar of vaccinology than acknowledge any past or present mistakes, or suffer the pain of needed reform. In so doing, with their arrogant and grossly irresponsible attitude to the safety of children, they demonstrate that primum non nocere is not in their vocabulary, and that their motto “dedicated to the health of children” is, quite frankly, a lie.
Such destructive (and self-destructive) actions reveal the AAP’s near-total dependency on the vaccine industry, and its desperation to perpetuate that gravy train at any cost. The American Academy of Pediatrics has sold its soul. Sooner or later, the devil will come to collect.
The AAP’s deep betrayal of its stated core purpose is hardly unique. The AAP is just the poster child for the corruption and corporate capture that have consumed other legacy medical professional associations (the American Medical Association and the American College of Gynecology come to mind).
The Federal Government must stop all funding to medical professional organizations like the AAP. This was always bound to corrupt them, and hard experience has demonstrated that it has. Furthermore, these organizations should be prohibited from accepting Pharma largesse, or at the very least be required to publicly disclose all income from such sources.
Perhaps some of these organizations will choose to reform. Public admission of past wrongdoing, complete divestiture of all Pharma support, and eliminating government subsidy would be the essential, bare-minimum steps to re-establishing independence and credibility.
More likely, the dinosaurs will be replaced by a species of smaller, independent, and uncompromised organizations that incorporate safeguards against the corruption that destroyed their predecessors.
Any legacy medical professional organizations that do not thoroughly and sincerely reform do not deserve the support of physicians, credibility in the eyes of the public, or trust of patients. May they go the way of the dinosaur.
C.J. Baker, M.D., 2025 Brownstone Fellow, is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
West Asia is lurching toward war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 30, 2025
There is extremely alarming news about the situation around Iran. In consultations with the Trump administration — rather, in deference to the command from Washington — the E3 countries (Britain, France and Germany) who are the remaining western signatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as JCPOA, have initiated the process of triggering the so-called snapback mechanism with the aim to reimpose all UN sanctions against Iran on the plea that it has breached the terms of the ten-year old agreement.
A joint statement issued in the three European capitals on Thursday notified the UN Security Council that Tehran is “in significant non-performance of its commitments under the JCPOA” to give a 30-day notice “before the possible reestablishment of previously terminated United Nations Security Council resolutions.”
The E3 statement is patently an act of sophistry since it was the US which unilaterally abandoned the JCOPA in 2018 and the three European powers themselves have been remiss in ignoring their own commitments to lift the sanctions against Iran through the past 15-year period, which only had ultimately prompted Tehran to resume the uranium enrichment activity — although the Iranian side was ready to reinstate the JCOPA as recently as in December 2022.
A strange part of the E3 move is that they short-circuited the prescribed procedure in regard of the snapback mechanism with the intent to reduce the two other permanent member countries of the Security Council to be mere bystanders with no role whatsoever in the matter. Unsurprisingly, Russia and China have taken exception to this and in a lengthy statement on Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry has demanded (with China’s backing) an extension of the time line by another six months by the Security Council as an interim measure so as to avoid a standoff with dangerous and tragic consequences.
Tehran has welcomed the Russia-China proposal as a “practical step.” Iran, of course, has explicitly warned that any such attempt by the E3 to reimpose the UN sanctions against it may compel it to reconsider its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It remains to be seen whether the E3 — or more precisely, the US-Israeli nexus which is the driving force behind the precipitate move — will be amenable to a compromise. All indications are that Israel with the full support of the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight with Iran and make a second attempt to force regime change in Tehran and the restoration of the erstwhile Pahlavi dynasty to replace the Islamic system that got established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Simply put, it is a make-or-break attempt by the US and Israel to bring about a geopolitical realignment in the West Asian region.
The US and Israel have drawn lessons out of the miserable failure of their first attempt in June to overthrow the Islamic system in Iran, and Israel suffered huge losses as Iran retaliated. This time around, the US and Israel seem to be preparing for a fight to the finish, although the outcome remains to be seen. Indeed, a protracted war may ensue. The US is rearming Israel with advanced weaponry. At some point, early enough in the war, a direct American intervention in some form can also be expected.
Unlike in June when the Trump administration in an elaborate ploy of deception lulled Tehran into a state of complacency when the Israeli attack began, this time around, Iran is on guard and has been strengthening its defenses. Make no mistake, Iran will fight back no matter what is takes. Iran is also getting help from Russia for beefing up its air defence system and there are reports that Russian advisors are helping Iran’s armed forces to augment their capability to resist the US-Israeli aggression.
Many western experts, including Alastair Crooke, have predicted that an Israeli attack on Iran can be expected sooner rather than later. The Israeli-American expectation could be that Russia’s military operations in Ukraine will have reached a climactic point by autumn which would almost certainly preclude any scope for Moscow to get involved in a West Asian conflict, and that, in turn, will give them a free hand to take the regime change agenda to its finish.
Besides, in a policy reversal, Iran has taken up the standing Russian offer to provide an integrated air defence system. Such a system will possibly be in position by the middle of next year or so and it is expected to be a force multiplier for Iran. Israel will most certainly try to attack Iran before the integrated system which is connected to Russian satellites becomes fully operational. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will be able to withstand Israeli pressure, given the Mossad’s alleged involvement in the Epstein scandal.
A West Asian war of titanic scale will be unprecedented. Apart from large scale loss of lives and destruction, the regional turmoil that ensues will also affect the surrounding regions — India in particular. The point is, an estimated 6 million Indians live in the Gulf region. Their safety and welfare will be in serious jeopardy if the Gulf states get sucked in to the war at some point.
The probability is high that Iran’s retaliation this time around may involve the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which tankers carry approximately 17 million barrels of oil each day, or 20 to 30 percent of the world’s total consumption. If that happens, oil price will sky rocket and India’s energy security, which is heavily dependent on oil imports, will be affected. India’s main sources of oil supplies are Russia (18-20%), Saudi Arabia (16-18%), UAE (8-10%) and the US (6-7%).
Clearly, if the oil supplies from the Gulf region get disrupted, India’s dependence on oil flows from Russia will only increase further. In fact, there will be a scramble for Russian oil and, paradoxically, Trump’s best-laid plans to hollow out “Putin’s war chest” will remain a pipe dream.
Significantly, according to Israel’s Kanal 13, Russia has evacuated its diplomatic personnel and their families in its embassy in Tel Aviv in anticipation of a “dramatic” change in the security situation and growing signs of an outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran.
After Alaska, Ukraine alliance envisions new war against Russia once current one ends
Zelensky’s Washington visit exposed Ukraine as a pawn, its elites preparing for endless wars while society collapses under loss, desertion, and bankruptcy.
By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | August 30, 2025
In the second half of August, Ukrainian society and media were focused on the August 15 talks in Alaska between the US and Russian presidents, as well as the talks in Washington three days later between the leaders of the Ukraine war alliance.
In Washington that day, the entire flock of warmaking European leaders joined Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their role as support groups. Western media closely covered both meetings, providing its worn spin on events. The following report focuses on reactions in Ukraine to all that was said and witnessed during these tumultuous days.
Against this backdrop, many Ukrainians hold hopes for peace. But the pro-Zelensky media and the legislators of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine legislature) are now working to ‘extinguish’ any expectations for peace. They have declared that the war may well continue for a long time yet. Zelensky’s appearance in Washington, they say, was necessary in order to ‘flatter’ Trump and maintain Washington’s financial support and arms supplies. During his five-minute meeting with Trump, Zelensky thanked him 11 times and sounded for all the world like a wind-up toy.
Ukrainian legislator Anna Skorokhod, who was elected in 2019 (the last election to have taken place in Ukraine) as part of Zelensky’s party machine and then expelled from it shortly after, acknowledges that Kiev is just a “pawn in someone else’s game”, Politinavigator reported on its Telegram channel on August 13. The publication said Skorokhod is comparing the current Ukrainian leadership to a dog on a leash in a kennel, barking loudly to attract the owner’s attention and be allowed into the master’s house.
She has called for an end to the war with Russia because, she says, Ukraine’s cemeteries have long been overflowing. She is urging Ukrainians to decide what is most important to them: saving lives or vainly struggling to hang onto territories already lost or deeply scarred by war. She considers Zelensky and his regime to be the main obstacle to ending the war, and says that the US and Russian governments are discussing the possibility of his overthrow by the Ukrainian military. “A military coup is being discussed quite a lot, including among the entourages of the two presidents who met in Alaska. A transfer of temporary power to the military who will sign any peace agreements they can eke out is in the air,” she says.
Skorokhod has recently claimed that some 400,000 members of the Ukraine armed forces have deserted since 2022, and that number continues to rise.
Political scientist and analyst Ruslan Bortnik believes that Ukraine’s strategy is to wait out a potential deal between the US and Russia, avoiding any direct clash with Washington while quietly sabotaging the implementation of any compromises that would favor Russia, including any ceding of territory already won by the Russian army and where votes to secede from Ukraine and join Russia have already been taken (Crimea in 2014 and the two Donbass republics plus the ‘new territories’ of Russia in Kherson and Zaporozhye, in 2022). According to one version being circulated, Ukraine would cede Donbass to Russia and acknowledge the reality of the 2014 vote in Crimea in exchange for a Russian withdrawal from the areas it controls in the eastern border oblasts (‘provinces’) of Sumy and Kharkiv.
The Ukrainian Institute of Politics (UIP), led by the aforementioned Ruslan Bortnik, believes that much of the talks that took place in Alaska will not be made public but can be ascertained and judged by indirect signs, reports Politnavigator on August 13. In particular, the online publication notes that Washington’s plans will best be signaled by the continuation or the reduction of its arms supplies to Kiev. He says plans will also be revealed by US sanctions policy towards Russia’s trading partners, primarily China and India.
Vague diplomatic statements about ‘peace’ are being issued by many Western leaders, but many political analysts in Ukraine actually expect an escalation of the military conflict. Washington’s attempt to reach a ‘peace’ agreement with Russia surrounding the meeting in Alaska is best understood as being motivated by an anticipated collapse of Kiev’s military frontlines, while the hope that these lines might serve as a future border between Russia and Ukraine, give or take a few kilometers, or few dozen.
“If the outcome of the summit turns out to be negative, further escalation of the conflict awaits us. Neither a tripartite meeting [Trump-Putin-Zelensky] nor an extended negotiating format [to include leaders of the three, leading warmakers of the EU—Britain, France and Germany] will be announced. Instead, we will hear vague diplomatic statements without concrete steps while the USA continues supplying weapons to Ukraine and it implements previously planned sanctions pressure on Russia’s trade allies.”
“Strategically, Trump is now seeking to accelerate the negotiation process due to the deteriorating situation for Ukraine on the front lines. The Ukrainian army is steadily retreating, and although the country is far from military defeat, Kyiv is suffering significant territorial losses,” writes the journal. “At the same time, sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation by the U.S. and Europe has failed.”
The former advisor to Zelensky’s presidential office, Alexei Arestovich, argues that the war will grimly continue until a major military, political, and social catastrophe for Ukraine occurs. “And then it will become clear: if the Ukrainian elite and the common people have the wisdom to seek a new form of existence for Ukraine, with a change in its national project, then the county will stand a chance to survive and create a new future. But if they don’t have enough sense, then others will set the future agenda here.”
The Ukrainian Telegram channel Legitimny believes that everyone in Zelensky’s entourage is now prepared to hand over Donbass to Russia, but they are all concerned about personal guarantees for themselves in such a case. “Simply put, Zelensky and Yermak (the top advisor in Zelensky’s office) want guarantees that they will be allowed to continue ruling Ukraine. This is a matter of personal self-interest, as they both fear losing power, leading to the complete destruction of Zelensky’s cult of personality and the dispossession of his entire elite of advisors.”
Journalist Oleg Yasinsky, born in Ukraine but now living in Chile, notes that among the results of the summit in Alaska is the fact that a precedent was set there for resolving the conflict without the participation of the Kiev authorities, on whom nothing ultimately depends. Yasinsky is a harsh critic of the Russian government, but he considers Zelensky’s government illegitimate. He expects Zelensky to stage another bloody battlefield spectacle in the near future in order to once again “try and convince Trump that Putin is a monster with whom it is impossible to negotiate”.
Yasinsky believes that too much was expected from the meeting in Alaska. It is unlikely to change the course of human history, but it may influence many processes as concerns Ukraine. In his opinion, Russia is currently playing an interesting diplomatic game: taking advantage of Trump’s narcissism, it is driving Zelensky into a corner. “By meeting with the American president on his territory, Putin is putting Kiev in a position where any response on its part will be a failure.
“Trump is currently in a difficult and unstable domestic situation, while Russia is ready to help him create an image as a ‘peacemaker’,” Yasinsky writes. He says Kiev has been completely sidelined for the first time since 2022, and any public outrage it expresses over Washington’s future moves will be considered by Trump as an affront. “Russian diplomacy is becoming similar to the work of a trainer in a zoo who is well acquainted with the behavioral characteristics and dangers of the animals in his care.”
In this situation, the Zelensky administration’s interests lie in publicly voicing desires for peace while dragging out any such process for as long as possible, regardless of any new losses of territories. Zelensky can only agree to a ceasefire in order to gain a respite while continuing to draw Western countries into the conflict, effectively risking a World War III between Russia and Ukraine’s Western allies. Last year, Zelensky signed security agreements with a number of Western countries that contain clauses allowing for a possible participation of Western armies in the event of a renewed conflict. Thus, only one day may pass between the end of one (the current) war and the beginning of another.
Zelensky is already talking about a ‘third war’ if Ukraine is forced to withdraw from Donbass. In today’s Ukrainian mythology, the ‘first war’ is considered to be the war against the Donbass republics from April 2014 to early 2022. Then a ‘second war’ began in February 2022 with Russia’s Special Military Operation. Now Zelensky is talking to his backers in the European Union, who have previously signed military agreements with him, about a ‘third war’ in which European troops become involved in the event of “new aggression” by Russia.’ Zelensky can easily arrange for this “new aggression” by using false flag operations to provoke it.
“Let me remind you,” writes Ukrainian political scientist Mikhail Chaplyha on Telegram on August 12: “Any ‘security’ agreements will be signed by Kiev on condition that a third war will be commenced following an appropriate lapse of time.”
Ukraine’s new Defense Minister Denis Shmyhal (a former Prime Minister – ministers in Ukraine regularly swap places to demonstrate that ‘reforms’ are taking place) assures his audiences that even after theoretical peace agreements with Russia, Kiev does not intend to reduce its army. Its Western backers will be expected to continue to finance and arm Kiev and its army, since the bankrupt state has neither the funds nor future expected revenues to sustain a million-strong army.
“One hundred per cent of Ukraine’s GDP is now devoted to debt repayment. This has never happened before. All economic indicators show that we are bankrupt,” Ukrainian legislator Mikhail Tsymbalyuk admitted recently.
For Ukrainian society, maintaining the army will mean the continuation of ‘busification’ (forced conscription) and a dictatorship of field commanders, while Ukraine’s western and northern border crossings will continue to be closed to all Ukrainian men hoping the leave or escape from the country. Maintaining a large army for decades is too expensive, so much of it will need to be rebuilt anew.
The continuation of the present war or the sparking of a new, extraordinary war would be beneficial to the Ukrainian elite, allowing them to continue to pillage the sums pouring into the country from the West, sums they could not dream of acquiring in peacetime conditions.
Immediately after the meeting of Zelensky and European leaders with Trump in Washington on August 18, European leaders once again (probably for the tenth time in three years) began talking about sending their own countries’ troops to Ukraine.
The UK is saying it is ready to deploy 30,000 troops to Ukraine, but this is fantasy; this would represent more than 25 per cent of its current armed forces of 114,000. (No wonder the UK government is musing of re-introducing some form of compulsory military service; and good luck with that!). Germany claims flatly that it cannot afford to send troops to Ukraine. Lithuania and Estonia each say they are ready to provide about 100 soldiers each. Little wonder that these European leaders are counting on the Trump regime to ride to their rescue, hoping that the U.S. may take on the leading financial and military role for western imperialism as it did in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 (with results only too well known).
The European armies said to be ready to ride to Ukraine’s rescue are not even sufficient to operate in two or three Ukrainian oblasts (provinces), let alone the 20 or so other ones fully or partly controlled by Kiev. The two Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk voted in 2022 to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation (though all of Donetsk is not yet liberated), as have done the two ‘new territories’ of Russia (Kherson and Zaporozhye). Crimea was an autonomous republic of Ukraine until it voted in 2010 to secede and join (rejoin) Russia.
“Behind the propaganda rhetoric about protecting Europe from a Russian offensive, solidarity with Ukraine, and so on lies banal, self-interest. Playing at warfare war with someone else (the West) helping to do the dirty work has turned out to be a profitable and extremely exciting national business,” writes Pavel Kotov, a columnist for the news website Ukraina.ru.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb has stood out among European ‘hawks’ for demonstrating the racism of European political elites towards the peoples of the Russian Federation. He has recently called the Donbass cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk “bastions against the Huns”, attempting to stir up medieval fears of ‘Asian invaders’. ‘Huns’ is a pejorative, historical term for the tribal warrior groups that occupied the steppe regions of western, Tsarist Russia, including today’s eastern Ukraine. Stubb is likely ignorant of the fact that it was in Kramatorsk and Slavyansk in April 2014 that the Donbass population began its uprising against the 2014 coup in Kiev and the neo-Nazi paramilitaries that served as the shock troops of the coup.
Stubb also demonstrated a complete ignorance of his country’s own history. At a meeting with Trump on August 18, he said that Finland had found a “good solution” in 1944 to end its participation in World War Two, suggesting that a similar solution could be found to end the ‘aggressive Russian war’ of today. He is referring to the treaty that Finland was forced to accept with the Soviet Union in 1944 in which it managed to retain its independence despite its government’s support to Nazi Germany, including its participation in the genocide-like blockade of the city Leningrad from 1941 to 1944. The Finnish government of the day capitulated in 1944 and switched sides.
Under its 1944 surrender treaty with the Soviet Union, Finland ceded territory (including its access to the Arctic), paid reparations, changed its government and turned its weapons against its former Nazi German allies. It handed many Nazis over as war criminals to the judicial system of the Soviet Union. The treaty committed a new government in Finland to renounce participation in any future military blocs and renounce any future hostile moves in domestic and foreign policy directed against the USSR. (The Nazi-allied government of Finland called itself a ‘free ally’ of the Nazis, in contrast to the governments of Italy, Romania and Hungary which were directly allied by treaties.)
Russian commentators and politicians reacted, many mockingly, to Stubb’s ignorant statements. Apparently, without realizing it, using Finnish history as his example, Stubb advocated a surrender of Ukraine to be followed by a treaty as a good model for today’s conflict in Ukraine. Such is the intellectual capacity of a typical western European leader today besotted with the ‘dream’ of war against Russia.
Top Kremlin official says NATO seeks to ‘re-establish military presence’ in Afghanistan
The Cradle | August 29, 2025
Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu on 29 August accused western intelligence of plotting to destabilize Afghanistan and rebuild NATO’s military infrastructure there.
Writing in state-owned Rossiyskaya Gazeta magazine, Shoigu said that Russia is seeking to expand cooperation with Afghanistan as it seeks to recover from two decades of US occupation that ended with the chaotic withdrawal of US troops in 2021.
Washington spent $2 trillion to invade and occupy Afghanistan starting in 2001, Shoigu noted, while facilitating the production of opium, much of which was used to make heroin for export to Russia.
Shoigu explained that opium production in the country skyrocketed during the 1980s when CIA-backed extremist groups, known as the mujahideen, sought to destabilize the Soviet-backed Afghan government and later to expel occupying Soviet troops.
When the Taliban first took power in 1996, they immediately cracked down on the opium trade, only for US-backed warlords to revive it after the 2001 US invasion in the wake of 9/11.
When the Taliban took power for a second time in 2021, they all but eliminated the heroin trade once again.
Shoyghu stated that some 20 international extremist groups continue to operate in Afghanistan, undermining stability within the country and posing a serious regional and global threat.
Of greatest concern is the Afghan wing of ISIS, which has training camps and support bases, mainly in the east, north, and northeast of the country.
Shoigu said militants are being moved from other countries by western intelligence to destabilize regions near Russia, China, and Iran.
“There is reason to believe that behind these actions are the special services of a number of western countries, which continue to hatch plans to destabilize the region, to create chronic centers of instability near Russia, China, and Iran by means of extremist groups hostile to the Taliban,” he wrote.
“It is also clear that the western powers, having lost their positions in the Afghan direction, are hatching plans to return NATO military infrastructure facilities to the region,” he added.
Shoigu stated that as a result, Moscow is ready to assist the Taliban in stabilizing the country, including by developing anti-terrorist and anti-drug cooperation with Kabul through law enforcement agencies.
US denies visas to Palestinian officials, ahead of UN meeting
Press TV – August 29, 2025
The United States has announced it will deny and revoke visas for members of the Palestinian delegation ahead of the United Nations General Assembly in September.
The leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will not be allowed to attend the UN General Assembly scheduled for next month at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday.
Rubio justified the unprecedented move by citing US laws that bar recognition of Palestinian statehood and impose sanctions on Palestinians for payments to prisoners and resistance fighters.
According to internal documents reviewed by Fox News, the decision affects senior officials from both the PA and the PLO, including President Mahmoud Abbas.
Permanent staff of the Palestinian UN Observer Mission, however, will be exempt under US treaty obligations.
The decision reflects “national security interests,” US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said, adding that the PA and PLO leaders must repudiate “terrorism” and unilateral statehood efforts before they can be considered partners for peace.
The decision marks the first time the US State Department has blocked an entire delegation from participating in the UN General Assembly.
Washington said the measure aims to prevent Palestinian leaders from using the UN platform to advance a constitutional declaration of independence.
The Game of Risk in Ukraine – Part 30 of the Anglo-American War on Russia
Tales of the American Empire | August 28, 2025
Neocons have been trying to destroy Russia since 1917 and were delighted with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The empire took control of Russia via privatization that allowed the mass looting of state assets. Former American presidential National Security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, mapped out the neocon plan to fragment larger nations of Eastern Europe and Central Asia into weak vassal states in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard.” Neocons advocate the destruction of Russia, not because it threatens anyone, but because it regained independence when Vladimir Putin came to power. Russia is a large, powerful nation that may block the expansion of the Anglo-American empire. Russians are tired of continual threats from warmongering neocons. They’ve sanctioned Russia for decades, funded terror attacks inside Russia, and even attacked Russia with NATO weaponry. These neocons will not agree to a peaceful settlement so Russia will be forced to take all of Ukraine.
_________________________________
“The Grand Chessboard”; Zbigniew Brzezinski; 1997; https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottaba…
“Military Summary” channel; YouTube; daily war updates; 
/ @militarysummary
Related Tales:
“The Anglo-American War on Russia”; • The Anglo-American War on Russia
Agent of Chaos: Soros Deploys His Regime-Change Tactics in the US
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.08.2025
Donald Trump demonstrates deep understanding of George Soros’ nefarious role in supporting “engineered chaos,” both inside the US and abroad, retired Colonel Hatem Saber, an Egyptian expert in international counterterrorism and information warfare, tells Sputnik.
“Democrats use Soros and his organizations as tools for regime change,” Saber says.
Saber highlighted the evolution of Soros’ role by decades:
- 1970s–1990s: Supporting opposition movements in Eastern Europe against the USSR
- 2000s–2010s: Key role in color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia
- 2011: Funding media networks and NGOs in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria to fuel the Arab Spring movements
- 2020–2024: Backing US anti-Trump protesters like Black Lives Matter, and campaigns defending illegal immigrants
Soros has extensive experience with color revolutions abroad, and Democrats capitalize on his ‘best practice’.
“Democrats could use the same tools against Trump within the US, mobilizing street protests through human rights and media campaigns funded by Soros’ foundations,” Saber said. “In this way, the ‘managed protest’ model, previously tested abroad, could be applied to weaken Trump and discredit his image domestically.”
The Egyptian expert warned that Soros currently targets several regions:
- Hungary and Poland – due to conflicts with the EU
- Africa – Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia – focusing on democracy and minorities
- Middle East – Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE – where his “open society” agenda is opposed
- Central Asia – to weaken Russian and Chinese influence and BRICS cooperation
Trump has threatened George Soros and his son Alex with federal charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Norway reprimands US Senator Lindsay Graham over $2T fund criticism
Al Mayadeen | August 29, 2025
The Norwegian Prime Minister’s office firmly rebuffed US Senator Lindsey Graham’s angry outburst over its sovereign wealth fund’s divestment from Caterpillar Inc., stating unequivocally that the government has no control over the fund’s independent investment decisions.
A spokesperson for the prime minister’s office stated that Premier Jonas Gahr Store sent a text message to Graham, which included information about the fund’s mandate and how its oversight is set up, and received confirmation that it was received.
Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, which held roughly $2.1 billion in Caterpillar shares as of June 30, announced this week that it had divested its holdings in the company due to “Israel’s” use of its bulldozers to destroy Palestinian property in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Earlier this week, in two social media posts on X, the Republican Senator lashed out at the $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, which is the world’s largest, threatening tariffs and visa denials because of its recent divestments from the Texas-based firm.
In a two-part statement, Graham first promised that the fund’s “BS decision” would have consequences, then spoke specifically about implementing tariffs and possible visa denials, noting that the Trump administration had already placed a 15% tariff on imports from Norway while the two nations remain engaged in trade negotiations.
The reaction from the US lawmaker came at a delicate time for the fund and for the Norwegian government, as Norway is set to hold parliamentary elections on Sept. 8 and the fund has been under pressure to divest from Israeli companies contributing to the war in Gaza.
In addition to its divestment from the heavy machinery company, the Norwegian fund announced it excluded five Israeli banking institutions which are: Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, First International Bank of Israel, and FIBI Holdings.
The decision followed recommendations from the fund’s ethics watchdog, the Council on Ethics, which concluded that there was an unacceptable risk of these institutions and Caterpillar contributing to serious rights violations in situations of war and conflict.
Russian Ambassador Slams U.S. & Europe Over Iran Sanctions at UN
Russia confirms circulating draft proposal aimed at preventing activation of ‘snapback’
Press TV – August 27, 2025
Russia has confirmed circulating a draft proposal at the UN Security Council aimed at averting activation of the so-called “snapback” mechanism that would restore the council’s sanctions against Iran.
The country’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyanski made the remarks to reporters during a press conference on Tuesday.
“It (the proposal) is about extending Resolution 2231,” he said.
The resolution’s expected expiration in October would lead to reinstatement of the coercive measures.
The European trio of the UK, France, and Germany – the United States allies in a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world countries – has been trying hard to have the measures restored.
Polyanski, however, insisted, “Russia and China want to give more breathing space for diplomacy and provide some possibilities for an active quest for a diplomatic solution to this issue.”
He said Moscow and Beijing were doing so in their capacity as “as responsible members of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal’s official name. … Full article
How US-Israeli Regime Change in Iran Failed
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents |August 28, 2025
On July 29th, the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, a think tank that is enormously influential on Zionist entity ‘defence’ and security policy, published a document advocating for regime change in Iran, setting out potential methods by which Israel could achieve that malign end. In a bitter irony, much of the report’s contents not only attest to the implausibility of achieving such a goal, but lay bare how Benjamin Netanyahu’s calamitous ‘12 Day War’ has made this objective all the more unfeasible.
A flagrant deceit lies at the document’s core. Namely, “Israel did not set the overthrow of the regime in Iran as a goal in the war.” In reality, on June 15th Netanyahu menacingly declared the entity’s unprovoked attack on the Islamic Republic “could certainly” produce regime change. He claimed the government was “very weak”, and “80% of the people would throw these theological thugs out.” Such bold pronouncements were quickly silenced by an unprecedented and devastating missile barrage from Tehran, which Tel Aviv couldn’t repel.
Instead, INSS claims “some” military moves undertaken by the Zionist entity during the 12 Day War “were intended to undermine the foundations” of the Islamic Republic, and ignite mass public protests. However, the Institute admits “not only is there no evidence Israel’s actions advanced this goal, but at least some of them had the opposite effect.” The “clearest example” of this failure, per INSS, was Tel Aviv’s blitzkrieg of Evin prison on June 23rd – a “symbolic blow…intended to encourage public mobilization.”
As it was, scores of civilians, including prisoners and their family members, medical professionals, administrative staff, and lawyers were killed, which “aroused harsh criticism of Israel” even among “critics and opponents” of the Iranian government “inside and outside” the country, the Institute records. Western media and major rights groups condemned the action, with Amnesty International branding it a “serious violation of international humanitarian law” that “must be investigated as a war crime.”
Likewise, attacks on the headquarters of Iran’s internal security forces and IRGC branch Basij “had no noticeable effect and did not lead to eruption of public protests.” INSS suggests Israel’s reckless, indiscriminate targeting of civilian infrastructure during the conflict also neutralised any prospect of citizens taking to streets even if they were at all inclined to do so, due to concerns they may be caught in crossfire. Moreover, Tel Aviv’s belligerence elicited an intense “anti-Israel wave” among the public.
The Institute observes how Iranians “exhibited a notable degree” of “rallying around the flag” during the 12 Day War – “a willingness to defend their homeland at a critical moment against an external enemy.” IINS laments how any and all traces of public dissent in the Islamic Republic “have almost completely disappeared”, in the conflict’s wake. Today, there is no “organized, structured opposition” within or without the country capable of mobilising protesters, let alone displacing the Islamic Republic’s popular government.
Instead, Tel Aviv’s wanton bellicosity has only increased fears among Iranians that foreign powers are seeking to incite and exploit “anarchy and civil war…to impose an alternative political order” on Tehran. It also represented “the most traumatic event for the Iranian public” since the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. Millions of citizens, particularly younger generations external actors typically look to as regime change footsoldiers, “have now been exposed to the horrors” of “imposed” conflict – and are resultantly more united than ever against external threats.
‘Inadvertent Effects’
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a “high level of internal cohesion”, and “ability to recover relatively quickly” from the Zionist entity’s initial onslaught. INSS bemoans how “there is no indication…of a significant and immediate threat to the stability” of Tehran. On top of the government enjoying “considerable support” among Iran’s “security and law enforcement apparatuses,” Mossad-controlled internal networks that initially wreaked havoc upon the 12 Day War’s eruption have been systematically hunted down, and liquidated. It will be difficult if not impossible to reconstruct them.
Iranian rescue workers sift through rubble inside Evin prison following Israel’s attack
Despite all this, the Institute inexplicably declares regime change in Tehran remains “a possible solution” and “worthy goal” – not just for the Zionist entity, but “the region, and the West.” The report sets out four “different strategies for overthrowing” Iran’s government, each more fantastical than the last. INSS advocates “beheading the ruling leadership” – assassinating “senior regime officials, including the Supreme Leader, his inner hive, and the heads of the political and military leadership,” arguing it might “create a reality that could develop into political change.”
The Institute alternatively suggests “a covert campaign to promote regime change, led by military, security, and political elements in Iran,” to foment a violent palace coup. Another option is “encouraging, organizing, and supporting opposition organizations in exile and training them for a quick return to Iran and taking over the centers of governmental power.” Finally, “providing aid and support to ethno-linguistic minorities while encouraging separatist tendencies and internal divisions within Iran” is mooted.
However, INSS contrarily concedes every proposed route “could lead to the opposite results of strengthening the government’s cohesion in Tehran and ‘rallying the public around the flag’,” and should thus be avoided. For example, the few Iranian diaspora who applauded the Zionist entity aggression’s against their home country, if not supported all-out insurrection in Tehran – most prominently monarchists – repulsed domestic audiences. “Large segments of the Iranian public” thus perceive them as “having betrayed Iran in its time of need”:
“Although aligning with pro-Western and pro-Israel diaspora groups that push for revolutionary change may seem natural, such associations may, in fact, undermine the credibility of internal opposition and ultimately obstruct the desired outcome.”
Similarly, the Institute warns assassinating Ali Khamenei – “raised as a possibility during the war” – “would not necessarily result in regime change,” and probably backfire spectacularly. The Islamic Republic “would likely have little difficulty selecting a successor, who could prove to be more extreme or more capable,” and the Supreme Leader’s murder “may also have inadvertent effects, such as elevating him into a martyr.” This would strengthen the government, solidify public opinion against Tel Aviv, and “complicate efforts to destabilize the regime through popular protest.”
Moreover, as a state that prides itself on religious and ethnic diversity and inclusion, “encouraging separatist tendencies” in Iran is likewise judged an ill-omened approach. INSS observes “heightened public sensitivity to any perceived foreign attempts to promote ethnic fragmentation” locally. Efforts to do so by Israel or its Anglo-American puppetmasters would inevitably “be viewed as trying to fracture the country” and rebound, “uniting large segments of the Iranian public against Israel.”
‘Capacity Problems’
No doubt disappointingly from Tel Aviv’s perspective, INSS concludes toppling the Islamic Republic “depends mainly on factors beyond Israel’s control, and on a catalyst whose prediction is elusive and may never materialize.” Despite purportedly “impressive operational successes” in the 12 Day War, the conflict amply demonstrated Zionist entity military action cannot “promote political change processes in Iran.” More generally, “historical experience shows regime change through foreign intervention brings highly questionable results at best” in West Asia:
“The US has failed to achieve the desired results in the vast majority of cases in which it has promoted moves for regime change, and Israel itself has problematic experience in intervening in another country for regime change – both in the First Lebanon War and in the considerable effort to topple Hamas in the Gaza Strip.”
Elsewhere, it’s suggested Iran “could be dragged into a strategic arms race with Israel, further depleting its already strained economic resources and deepening civilian suffering.” However, INSS acknowledges an almost inevitable upshot would be Tehran seeking nuclear weapons capability, given such an arsenal “would serve as an existential insurance policy.” In any event, “Israel, too, faces limits on its military and economic capabilities” – which is quite an understatement. Yet again though, the Institute ultimately endorses “Israel’s decision to actively act toward regime change in Tehran.”
Evidently, from the perspective of Tel Aviv and its Western sponsors, the regime change coast isn’t clear in Tehran. It is therefore imperative Iranian authorities and the public alike remain ever-vigilant of foreign-borne threats, seen and unseen. Yet, the INSS report abundantly underlines how in the 12 Day War’s wake, the Zionist entity has no good options left available, only scope for triggering far worse consequences for itself. And the Institute considerably downplays the extent to which the conflict was a counterproductive catastrophe for Israel.
It’s been reported senior entity officials had been preparing for June 13th since March, seeking to strike before Iran “rebuilt its air defenses by the latter half of the year.” The underlying plan to militarily cripple Tehran and trigger a popular revolution was in turn purportedly “carefully laid months and years in advance,” having been specifically wargamed in conjunction with the Biden administration. Israel gave Tehran its best shot, failed in its each and every objective, and was left battered.
Tel Aviv’s grand scheme to crush the Islamic Republic employed an extraordinary amount of finite munitions, at astronomical cost. A former financial adviser to the ZOF’s chief of staff has estimated the abortive campaign’s first 48 hours alone cost $1.45 billion, with almost $1 billion spent on defensive measures alone. Government economists place the daily cost of military operations at $725 million. Haaretz calculates civilian and domestic financial damage could run to many billions. This, while the entity’s economy is already barely-functioning.
Furthermore, the entity was reportedly running hazardously low on missile interceptors within five days, despite the US being cognisant of “capacity problems” for months prior, and spending intervening months “augmenting Israel’s defenses with systems on the ground, at sea and in the air.” A July report from Zionist lobby group JINSA warned, “after burning through a large portion of their available interceptors,” Washington and Israel “both face an urgent need to replenish stockpiles and sharply increase production rates.”
Grave questions abound over the pair’s ability to do either. JINSA notes US THAAD interceptors provided 60% of the entity’s air defence, expending roughly 14% of Washington’s total THAAD stockpile in the process – which “at current production rates” will take three to eight years to replenish. Iran’s “large-scale missile campaign” moreover “revealed vulnerabilities in Israeli and US air defense systems, providing lessons that Iran or other US adversaries could exploit in the future.”
In sum, the Zionist entity is a beast encircled, reduced to lashing out through desperation, not strength. Its ability to flail against not merely Iran, but the wider Axis of Resistance, without further endangering its already precarious position is extremely limited, if not non-existent. Wholly dependent on foreign support at a time polls indicate it’s the most hated ‘country’ on Earth, Tel Aviv still presumes the capability to make the next move against its adversaries. INSS’ report strongly suggests this could be its very last.
Trump revives Gaza ‘Riviera’ plan in White House meeting with Blair and Kushner
MEMO | August 28, 2025
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has participated in a White House meeting led by Donald Trump and Jared Kushner to discuss Gaza’s future, a gathering that has raised alarm due to its exclusion of Palestinians and ties to a plan that many describe as a blueprint for ethnic cleansing.
The meeting, described as a “large gathering” by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, reportedly focused on a post-war vision for Gaza that echoes Trump’s earlier calls to depopulate the besieged territory and transform it into a US-controlled “Riviera” on the Mediterranean. Witkoff framed the initiative as “well-meaning,” yet there is widespread concern over an initiative led by figures who back Gaza’s ethnic cleansing.
Blair’s presence at the meeting has drawn scrutiny given previous involvement of staff from his institute with a project widely linked to this so-called “Riviera Plan”. Earlier reporting by the Financial Times (FT) revealed that staff from Blair’s Institute for Global Change took part in discussions involving an economic development slide deck that envisioned a depopulated Gaza rebranded as a smart zone for luxury tourism and offshore development. Although the Blair Institute has stressed that it neither authored nor endorsed the plan, the participation of its staff has raised questions.
Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East adviser, has long been an advocate of such proposals. In February 2024, he remarked on the “value” of Gaza’s waterfront and publicly suggested Israel should “move the people out” and redevelop the territory. That statement closely mirrors Trump’s suggestion that the US could oversee the reconstruction of Gaza once its population is expelled.
Trump’s White House has been consulting Kushner for months on the future of Gaza and is reported to have collaborated with economists like Joseph Pelzman, who openly advocated for razing Gaza entirely and relocating its residents. The academic, speaking on an Israeli podcast, outlined a plan to dig up all infrastructure and “move [the locals] around,” suggesting Egypt—described as “bankrupt”—could be pressured into accepting the displaced population.
No Palestinian officials or representatives were present at the meeting. Nor were any Arab states reportedly invited, despite the meeting’s sweeping implications for regional stability. Instead, the attendees included Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, a close confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The absence of Palestinian voices and the involvement of figures like Kushner, who has dismissed Palestinian statehood and backed Israeli settlement expansion, has intensified criticism.
For Blair, a former Quartet envoy to the Middle East, participation in such a meeting, alongside proponents of Gaza’s ethnic cleansing, is especially controversial. A source close to Blair told the FT that his attendance was driven by a desire to restart a political process and secure a two-state solution, claiming “it is absolutely not and never was about forcible displacement.”
The “Riviera” vision for Gaza has been condemned by Palestinian civil society, international legal scholars and numerous human rights organisations as a dangerous fantasy rooted in colonial logic. Turning a traumatised, war-ravaged land into a playground for foreign investors, while its indigenous population is exiled, has been likened to historical settler projects where violence, displacement and economic opportunism went hand in hand.
The meeting took place just as Israel prepares a fresh ground assault on Gaza City, and after Hamas accepted a ceasefire plan that Israel then rejected. In parallel, Trump officials have worked to block Palestinian statehood initiatives at the UN, pressuring allies including the UK, France and Australia to fall in line.
Featured Video
Death Spikes & Rising Cancer In Our Youth Explained
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Politicians lie
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- Ukrainian Soldiers, Potential Mercenaries: Have Gun, Will Travel!
- Burnham’s UN debut… A masterclass in British disinformation
- Iran flights continue despite US aviation sanctions
- Global Tipping Points Lead the World Into a State of Entropy
- The day-after at the White House: USA and Xi Jinping
- The Geopolitical Balance in the Red Sea: The UAE Being Displaced by New Players
- Iraqi resistance group vows to stage airport sit-ins over Iran aerial blockade
- If Americans Knew
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- In UN Speech, Iran’s President Displays Pictures of Children Killed by US, Brings Attention to Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- 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
