Smoke in Rome: What’s really cooking between Trump and Tehran?
While US negotiators trade smiles with Tehran, internal rifts and foreign pressure reveal just how fragile Washington’s position has become
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | April 23, 2025
Last Saturday, the second round of US-Iran nuclear talks took place in Rome, following an initial meeting held a week before in Muscat, Oman. Both sides had described the talks as “constructive,” but that optimism quickly collided with a wave of conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Despite the encouraging tone, it remained unclear whether a new nuclear agreement was truly within reach.
At the outset of negotiations, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – an outspoken Iran hawk – laid down a hardline condition: Iran must completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program if it wanted any deal with the US. But after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who led the US delegation, struck a very different note. In an interview with Fox News, he suggested that Tehran might be allowed to maintain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy purposes – something that would have been a nonstarter just days earlier.
Witkoff emphasized the importance of strict verification protocols to prevent any militarization of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including oversight of missile technology and delivery systems. Notably absent from his remarks? Any mention of “dismantlement.” This shift hinted that the administration might be considering a modified return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the very agreement that Trump tore up in 2018, branding it a “disaster.”
But the pivot didn’t last. Just one day later, Witkoff reversed course in a post on X, doubling down on the demand for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs. So what triggered the rhetorical whiplash?
According to Axios, Trump huddled with top national security officials just three days after the Muscat talks to reassess the US strategy. In that meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued for a pragmatic approach. Pushing Tehran to dismantle its entire nuclear infrastructure, they warned, would tank the talks. Iran had already made it clear that such sweeping concessions were off the table. Vance even suggested Washington should brace for some level of compromise.
But not everyone agreed. A rival faction – led by Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – saw things differently. They argued that Iran’s current vulnerability gave the US a unique upper hand, one that shouldn’t be squandered. If Tehran failed to meet America’s terms, they insisted, the US should be ready to strike militarily or greenlight Israeli action.
The divide exposes a deeper strategic rift within the Trump administration. Between the maximalist view that Iran must be completely disarmed and the more flexible position that aims to curb weaponization while preserving peaceful enrichment lies a vast gray area. The lack of a unified message – or even basic consensus – risks leaving the US at a disadvantage against a seasoned and coordinated Iranian negotiating team.
In short, Trump finds himself in a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it’s clear he wants to avoid military escalation. The decision to send Witkoff – a figure known for his willingness to compromise – signals a genuine interest in diplomacy over saber-rattling. If hardliners had the upper hand in Washington, it’s unlikely the second round in Rome would have happened at all.
On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously told reporters the talks were going “very well,” but warned that real progress would take time. His choice of words reflected a desire to stay flexible, while acknowledging the complexity – and risks – of negotiating with Tehran.
Optimism seems more palpable on the Iranian side. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides had found significantly more common ground in Rome than in Muscat. His remarks suggest that momentum is building and that real progress may be on the horizon.
Araghchi’s itinerary also raised eyebrows. Before heading to Rome, he made a stop in Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He reportedly carried a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – what he called “a message to the world.” The West didn’t miss the symbolism: the visit was widely interpreted as a public reaffirmation of the Moscow–Tehran alliance. Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor noted on X that any major American military action against Iran would likely draw a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic partner.
On that same day, President Putin signed a law ratifying a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran – further cementing political and economic cooperation. Against the backdrop of fragile US-Iran talks, the Moscow-Tehran axis suddenly looks more consequential. With these growing ties, Washington may find it harder to exert unilateral pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, not everyone in Tehran is sold on the negotiations. Many Iranian officials remain skeptical of Trump, whose decision to unilaterally scrap the JCPOA in 2018 still looms large. Their distrust extends beyond Trump himself to a broader concern: that future US presidents may once again reverse course. If Obama’s deals were dismantled by Trump, why wouldn’t Trump’s agreements suffer the same fate?
Despite these tensions, major international outlets have confirmed that two more rounds of talks are planned: one in Geneva next week, and another in Oman the week after. The continued diplomatic activity points to a shared interest in keeping the conversation alive. For now, both Trump’s measured optimism and Iran’s cautious tone suggest that, at least in the near term, the risk of war has receded.
This de-escalation in rhetoric reflects a deeper truth: despite lingering mistrust and domestic political pressures, both sides see value in staying at the table. You don’t have to be a policy wonk to see that. But in Israel, the mood is far more anxious. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – never one to hide his skepticism about engaging Iran – has condemned the talks. For Tel Aviv, negotiations risk softening Tehran’s isolation and threatening Israel’s strategic position.
Still, Trump’s priority isn’t regional politics – it’s his legacy. He wants to be seen as the president who avoided war and brokered a deal the American public can get behind. In that light, Netanyahu’s objections may have to wait
Farhad Ibragimov, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
EU refusing to lift Russia sanctions for peace – Reuters
RT | April 23, 2025
The EU has firmly rejected the idea of easing Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia before peace negotiations are concluded, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing sources.
Last week, the US shared with EU officials proposals aimed at facilitating a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The initiative reportedly outlined potential terms to end the conflict, including the easing of sanctions on Moscow in the event of a lasting ceasefire.
Brussels, however, “staunchly opposes” Russia’s request to lift EU sanctions before peace talks are concluded, Reuters wrote, citing European diplomats. Another sticking point is the US proposal to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea – a suggestion the outlet described as a “non-starter” for both the EU and Kiev.
The EU’s stance is reportedly seen as diminishing the chances of any breakthrough in the peace negotiations, prompting senior US officials to skip a high-level meeting in London on Wednesday held for discussing the Ukraine conflict.
The gathering was due to include top diplomats from the UK, US, France, Germany, and Ukraine but ended up being downgraded to involve lower-level officials.
Both special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are skipping the event. The US delegation is instead being led instead by General Keith Kellogg, another envoy of US President Donald Trump focused on Ukraine.
Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared the EU would not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues. Also in March, the EU rejected a Russian demand to lift sanctions on Russian Agricultural Bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington. During the talks in Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US agreed to work toward reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, would include the removal of Western restrictions against the agricultural bank and other financial institutions.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded that the EU’s refusal to lift sanctions on Russia demonstrates the bloc’s reluctance to end the Ukraine conflict. “If European countries don’t want to go down this path, it means they don’t want to go down the path of peace in unison with the efforts shown in Moscow and Washington,” he said at the time.
Trump axes Biden-era post set up to probe ‘Russian war crimes’
RT | April 23, 2025
The administration of US President Donald Trump has reportedly eliminated a position within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that was responsible for sharing evidence of alleged Russian war crimes.
Mandated by a bipartisan bill passed in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the Intelligence Community Coordinator for Russia Atrocities Accountability Act (ICCRAA) was enacted as part of the 2023 Intelligence Authorization Act.
According to anonymous sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday, both the ICCRAA and the interagency working group it led have been terminated.
Previous reports indicated that the Trump administration had withdrawn from collaboration with an EU-led initiative aimed at investigating Russian nationals in connection with the Ukraine conflict, halted a Justice Department program for training Ukrainian prosecutors on handling these cases, and closed an inquiry into Kiev’s allegations that the Russian authorities kidnapped Ukrainian children.
Two major priorities of the Trump agenda include slashing government spending on programs deemed unnecessary and concluding the Ukraine conflict.
The efforts to resolve the conflict reportedly reached a critical juncture this week, with Washington anticipating reactions from Kiev and European NATO members regarding its proposed compromise ceasefire deal before presenting it to Moscow. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned last week that the US could “move on” to other issues if the negotiations stall.
Neither Rubio nor Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who outlined the ideas last week at a gathering in Paris, will attend this week’s discussions with Ukrainian officials in London, according to Axios. However, Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for follow-up talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Reports indicate that the US is proposing formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over the former Ukrainian region of Crimea, which voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has rejected this, reiterating on Tuesday that Kiev’s claim to the peninsula is non-negotiable.
Seven Reasons Not to Bomb Iran
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | April 23, 2025
“There are two ways Iran can be handled,” U.S. President Donald Trump has said, “militarily, or you make a deal.” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz advocated for the military solution; Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance advocated for diplomacy. Trump has opted for diplomacy. But all options are still on the table, and if the diplomatic path fails, Trump says “the other will solve the problem.”
But there are several reasons why all options should not be on the table and why bombing Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear bomb would be absurd.
Most importantly, and the only one that really needs to be said, is that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa, an official religious ruling, that declared nuclear weapons to be forbidden by Islam. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which “reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community,” clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Ayatollah] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” That assessment maintains the 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review that concludes that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” The most absurd reason for bombing Iran to prevent them from pursuing a nuclear bomb is that the U.S. knows Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb.
Since Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the second reason why it is absurd to bomb Iran is that it has every legal right to its civilian nuclear program. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has “the inalienable right to a civilian program that uses “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The United States does not believe Iran has an illegal nuclear weapons program, and it would be absurd to bomb them for having a legal civilian nuclear program.
Thirdly, Iran has already demonstrated that a military solution is not necessary for the Trump administration to achieve its goal of ensuring that Iran does not enrich uranium to weapon grade levels. America’s concerns, well-founded or not, can be satisfied by establishing verifiable limits on Iran’s levels of enrichment. Iran demonstrated its willingness to comply with this nonmilitary solution when it agreed to those verifiable limitations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. Eleven consecutive International Atomic Energy Agency reports verified that Iran was completely and consistently in compliance with the commitments made under that agreement. A military solution to America’s concerns about Iran’s civilian nuclear program is absurd because the U.S. has historical evidence that the nonmilitary solution works.
The military solution is not only absurd because it is unnecessary, it is even more absurd because it risks, not only war with Iran, but a wider, regional war. The United States has begun moving military equipment into the region, including aircraft carriers, bombers, and air defense systems. While presented as preparation for the possibility of intensified war with the Houthis, American officials have privately said “that the weaponry was also part of the planning” for a potential “conflict with Iran.” Even just that “buildup of American weaponry,” according to a new intelligence assessment provided by Tulsi Gabbard, “could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.” Iran has stated that U.S. military action against its civilian nuclear program will elicit a military response from Iran against U.S. bases in the region. Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, said, “If they threaten Islamic Iran, then, like powder kegs, America’s allies in the region and U.S. bases will be made unsafe.” A military solution risks a war with Iran and, potentially, even a wider, regional war.
The fifth reason is that, for all the risk of war with Iran and, perhaps, even a wider regional war, the assessed benefit is not worth it. In a striking line that has received little attention, The New York Times reported that the goal of military plans to bomb Iran’s civilian nuclear sites being discussed by the United States and Israel “was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.” Absurd is an understatement for risking war with Iran, and even a wider Middle East war, to set Iran’s nuclear program—a nuclear program the U.S. knows Iran does not have—to set the program back by only a year.
All of this calculation of costs and benefits and risks of war is absurd because we know that the diplomatic path can work. We know it can work because it did ten years ago with the successful solution of the JCPOA nuclear agreement. There is reason to hope that, a decade later, it can work again. In the first round of talks in Oman on April 12, Iran insisted that future direct talks would be contingent on the success of the current indirect talks. At the end of that first round, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. chief negotiator Steve Witkoff, met directly, not momentarily as first reported, but for forty-five minutes. The first round in Oman successfully led to a second round in Rome, and the second round has now led to a third round because the second round was constructive.
And, finally, talk of a military solution by the nation that claims leadership of a world order based on international law is absurd because a pre-emptive strike on Iran without Security Council approval would be a violation of international law.
Diplomacy has a real chance of defusing the long and volatile standoff between the United States and Iran. Threats of war are not only unnecessary, they contribute only to making the diplomacy more difficult.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Israel Pressures US Toward War With Iran
Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor, an analyst and an advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi argues that Iran is ready for war, as the US and Israel disagree over attacking Iran.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Iran Ready to Make Nuclear Program More Transparent in Exchange for Lifting Sanctions
Sputnik – 22.04.2025
TEHRAN – Tehran is ready to make its nuclear program more transparent and develop more trust in it, provided that sanctions are lifted, Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Tuesday.
“We will try to create more transparency and more trust [in the nuclear program] in exchange for lifting sanctions. In other words, in exchange for lifting sanctions — I emphasize, in a way that is effective and has a [positive] effect on people’s lives — Iran is ready to create more trust in its nuclear program and more transparency,” Mohajerani told reporters.
Mohajerani added that Iran considers it possible to reach a “good agreement” with the United States on nuclear issue, and this can be done in a short time.
“We are confident that reaching a good agreement [with Washington] in a short time while respecting our national interests is realistic,” Mohajerani said.
Mohajerani described the second round of Iranian-American talks as “good,” and called its atmosphere “constructive.”
The second round of talks between Iran and the US took place in Rome on April 19 with the mediation of Oman. The first round took place in the Omani capital on April 12 and the third round is planned for April 26.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, saying that Tehran is close to creating nuclear weapons, but the US does not intend to allow this to happen. However, Iran has denied any plans to develop nuclear weapons.
Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense
By Ryan Grim and Saagar Enjeti | Drop Site News | April 21, 2025
The American official overseeing White House policy toward both Israel and Iran inside the National Security Council formerly worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Drop Site News has learned. Merav Ceren’s appointment as Director for Israel and Iran at the NSC has not previously been reported, but her work with Israel’s MoD is well known among GOP circles.
Ceren’s appointment gives Israel an unusual advantage in internal policy discussions just as the Israeli government has launched a new campaign to pressure the American government to start a war with Iran rather than continue with negotiations toward a nuclear deal.
NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed that Ceren is now an official at the NSC and defended her as “a patriotic American.”
“Merav is a patriotic American who has served in the United States government for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman James Comer,” said Hughes. “We are thrilled to have her expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President’s agenda on a range of Middle East issues.”
Ceren includes her time with Israel’s Ministry of Defense in her bio at the pro-Israel think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
The Israeli campaign has forced the issue into the top echelons of government. At a high-level meeting reported on recently by the New York Times, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth all pushed back against Israel’s plan for a major strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. They were even joined by NSC Director Michael Waltz, who warned that Israel’s effort would not succeed without ample U.S. support. Waltz and CENTCOM commander, Gen. Michael Kurilla, the Times reported, had previously been open to entertaining the Israeli idea and were briefed by Israeli military officials on a range of plans.
It’s rare for a foreign country to be able to pitch American policymakers on a joint war effort and look across the table to see a former member of their own Ministry of Defense working for the Americans. As Trump debates his tariff policy, for instance, there are no high-level officials who previously worked for the Chinese Communist Party present.
Ceren’s FDD bio says that while working for the Israeli military she participated in negotiations in the West Bank between Israel’s Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and the Palestinian Authority. COGAT is the Israeli agency now refusing entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, sparking a humanitarian crisis of unspeakable proportions. Ceren is the sister of Omri Ceren, a bellicose neoconservative and longtime foreign policy adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz.
In 2021, she authored the article “The Moral Case for High-Tech Weapons” for The New Atlantis, a long-form style publication that seeks to “understand the core anxiety about tech as the threat of dehumanization.”
Deporting dissent: The dangerous precedent set by the persecution of pro-Palestine activists
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 22, 2025
“Rights are granted to those who align with power,” Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, eloquently wrote from his cell. This poignant statement came soon after a judge ruled that the government had met the legal threshold to deport the young activist on the nebulous ground of “foreign policy”.
“For the poor, for people of colour, for those who resist injustice, rights are but words written on water,” Khalil further lamented. The plight of this young man, whose sole transgression appears to be his participation in the nationwide mobilisation to halt the Israeli genocide in Gaza, should terrify all Americans. This concern should extend even to those who are not inclined to join any political movement and possess no particular sympathy for – or detailed knowledge of – the extent of the Israeli atrocities in Gaza, or the United States’ role in bankrolling this devastating conflict.
The perplexing nature of the case against Khalil, like those against other student activists, including Turkish visa holder Rumeysa Ozturk, starkly indicates that the issue is purely political. Its singular aim appears to be the silencing of dissenting political voices.
Judge Jamee E. Comans, who concurred with the Trump Administration’s decision to deport Khalil, cited “foreign policy” in an uncritical acceptance of the language employed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio had previously written to the court, citing “potentially serious foreign policy consequences” stemming from Khalil’s actions, which he characterised as participation in “disruptive activities” and “anti-Semitic protests”.
The latter accusation has become the reflexive rejoinder to any form of criticism levelled against Israel, a tactic prevalent even long before the current catastrophic genocide in Gaza.
Those who might argue that US citizens remain unaffected by the widespread US government crackdowns on freedom of expression must reconsider. On 14 April, the government decided to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the University of Harvard.
Beyond the potential weakening of educational institutions and their impact on numerous Americans, these financial measures also coincide with a rapidly accelerating and alarming trend of targeting dissenting voices within the US, reaching unprecedented extents. On 14 April, Massachusetts immigration lawyer Nicole Micheroni, a US citizen, publicly disclosed receiving a message from the Department of Homeland Security requesting her self-deportation.
Furthermore, new oppressive bills are under consideration in Congress, granting the Department of Treasury expansive measures to shut down community organisations, charities and similar entities under various pretenses and without adhering to standard constitutional legal procedures.
Many readily conclude that these measures reflect Israel’s profound influence on US domestic politics and the significant ability of the Israel lobby in Washington DC to interfere with the very democratic fabric of the US, whose Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.
While there is much truth in that conclusion, the narrative extends beyond the complexities of the Israel-Palestine issue.
For many years, individuals, predominantly academics, who championed Palestinian rights were subjected to trials or even deported, based on “secret evidence”. This essentially involved a legal practice that amalgamated various acts, such as the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), among others, to silence those critical of US foreign policy.
Although some civil rights groups in the US challenged the selective application of law to stifle dissent, the matter hardly ignited a nationwide conversation regarding the authorities’ violations of fundamental democratic norms, such as due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Following the terrorist attacks [events] of September 11, 2001, however, much of that legal apparatus was applied to all Americans in the form of the PATRIOT Act. This legislation broadened the government’s authority to employ surveillance, including electronic communications and other intrusive measures.
Subsequently, it became widely known that even social media platforms were integrated into government surveillance efforts. Recent reports have even suggested that the government mandated social media screening for all US visa applicants who have travelled to the Gaza Strip since 1 January 2007.
In pursuing these actions, the US government is effectively replicating some of the draconian measures imposed by Israel on the Palestinians. The crucial distinction, based on historical experience, is that these measures tend to undergo continuous evolution, establishing legal precedents that swiftly apply to all Americans and further compromise their already deteriorating democracy.
Americans are already grappling with their perception of their democratic institutions, with a disturbingly high number of 72 percent, according to a Pew Research Centre survey in April 2024, believing that US democracy is no longer a good example for other countries to follow.
The situation has only worsened in the past year. While US activists advocating for justice in Palestine deserve unwavering support and defence for their profound courage and humanity, Americans must also recognise that they, and the remnants of their democracy, are equally at risk.
“Our defence is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere,” is the timeless quote associated with Abraham Lincoln. Yet, every day that Mahmoud Khalil and others spend in their cells, awaiting deportation, stands as the starkest violation of that very sentiment. Americans must not permit this injustice to persist.
Syrian security forces detain Palestinian resistance leaders
The Cradle | April 22, 2025
Two top officials from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement in Syria have been detained by Syrian security forces.
Khaled Khaled, head of PIJ operations in Syria, and Yasser al-Zafari, head of the organizational committee, were arrested five days ago.
The Syria TV outlet acknowledged the arrests, yet Damascus has not commented officially on the matter.
The arrests come after reports that the US has issued a list of conditions that Syrian authorities must fulfill in exchange for relief from sanctions that were imposed by Washington on former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government.
These conditions include the destruction of any chemical weapons, cooperation on “counter-terrorism,” and ensuring foreign fighters are not granted top positions, according to Reuters.
Reuters also said that “one of the conditions was keeping Iran-backed Palestinian groups at a distance.”
The arrests coincide with Israel’s continued expansion of its occupation of southern Syria, and come after a visit to Damascus by US Congressman Cory Mills, who held talks with Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani.
“The president and the leadership have demonstrated their willingness to work with Israel as they seek to prevent Hashd al-Shaabi from transferring weapons from Iraq through Syria into Lebanon,” Mills said in an interview with the Jusoor outlet.
The PIJ’s armed wing, the Quds Brigades, released a statement about the arrests on 22 April.
Khaled and Zafari were detained “without any explanation for the reasons of their arrest, and in a manner which we would not have hoped to see from our brothers [in Syria],” the Quds Brigades statement reads.
“Day five has passed and you have two of our best cadres,” it said. “We in the Quds Brigades hope that our brothers in the Syrian government will release our brothers held by them.”
“At this time when we have been fighting the Zionist enemy continuously for more than a year and a half in the Gaza Strip without surrender, we hope to receive support and appreciation from our Arab brothers, not the opposite,” it added.
Under Bashar al-Assad’s government, Syria was a haven for Palestinian resistance factions, including the PIJ and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP–GC).
Days after the fall of Assad’s government, Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported that the new government in Syria ordered Palestinian resistance groups to dissolve all military formations in the country.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that toppled the former government, launched a wave of closures targeting Palestinian faction offices after entering Damascus in December 2024, according to The Cradle’s Palestine correspondent.
Offices belonging to Fatah al-Intifada, the Baath-aligned Al-Sa’iqa movement, and the PFLP–GC were shuttered, with their weapons, vehicles, and real estate seized.
Several Palestinian officials were detained and placed under house arrest.
UK advancing military measures
By Lucas Leiroz | April 22, 2025
Despite current US’ efforts to reduce the diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia, the UK and the EU are not following in the American footsteps and continue to escalate their military actions as much as possible. Increasing arms production and expanding troops have been some of the measures adopted to prepare for the supposed “imminent conflict with Russia”. In the case of London, the current focus seems to be on creating an autonomous explosives and artillery industry, eliminating dependence on the US.
In a recent article, The Times revealed that the UK plans to “drastically” increase its explosives production to reduce imports of this type of material from the US. The newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that London is concerned about the future of its alliance with the US, considering the recent changes in American foreign policy, which is why the country aims to become completely independent in all sectors of the military industry, with the explosives segment being a top priority.
The article states that British military scientists are using containers at sites across the country to manufacture RDX, an explosive vital for 155mm artillery shells. In addition, BAE Systems, the only British company currently specializing in the production of these artillery shells, is also planning to build new facilities with the aim of expanding the production of explosive materials for its rockets.
“In an effort not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and in acknowledgment of Britain’s inability to produce shells for Ukraine, BAE is increasing munitions production in the United Kingdom substantially. The company is establishing multiple sites for explosives manufacture to increase resilience and eliminate dependence on supplies from America and other countries. This will also help insulate the UK from restrictions on the use of US hardware”, the article reads.
As can be seen, the issue of explosives has become central to Britain’s arms production strategy as the country finds it difficult to supply its Ukrainian ally with sufficient UK-made artillery shells. The weakness of the military industry is hampering London’s plans to remain a key supporter of the Kiev regime – especially after the Trump-led reduction in US aid, which is why expanding the production of explosives that enable the projectiles to work has become a priority for the country.
However, Britain’s concerns are not limited to artillery. The UK is starting a major renovation of its strategic policy, trying as much as possible to nationalize the production of critical military materials. The Times article also expressed concern about the US control over other sectors of the British military, stating, for example, that the country’s air force needs to become independent of American technology. In other words, London no longer trusts Washington and is preparing for a scenario where the two countries could simply cut relations.
“The Royal Air Force is especially exposed to US technology. While the Royal Navy and the army field more homegrown and European systems, the RAF relies on US airborne early warning and maritime patrol aircraft and the F35 stealth fighter. The latter’s software is under US control and, in truth, it is not a sovereign system. Nowhere, however, is Britain’s dependence on the US deeper than in the nuclear field. While the UK builds the submarines and warheads for its deterrent, it relies on America’s Trident missile for delivery. The UK draws its Tridents from a joint stockpile held and serviced in the US. While Britain can fire its missiles independently, a withdrawal of US support following a rupture in relations would result in Tridents in British possession gradually becoming unusable. The UK should reshore missile maintenance,” the article adds.
In fact, making its military production fully sovereign is an interesting goal for any country. Dependence on foreign technology is an uncomfortable situation and creates instability for the country that imports defense hardware. The problem in the current case is that the UK is seeking this “strategic sovereignty” for the wrong reasons.
The UK’s move comes amid a current wave of militarization in European countries as a response to Trump’s “isolationism.” The UK and EU are trying to become “independent” of American military technology because they believe that they must not only continue to arm Ukraine in the long term, but also that they must prepare for a possible direct conflict with Russia in the future.
If London were planning to become truly “independent from the US,” the right thing to do would be to adopt a policy focused on internal development and to leave NATO. But Britain’s interest is simply to react to Trump’s diplomacy and pursue an even more aggressive and bellicose foreign policy. It remains to be seen whether the declining British economy will have enough strength to complete this “remilitarization” project without generating serious social side effects.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Unshrunk: Laura Delano’s breakaway from psychiatry
The powerful story of a psychiatric survivor turning pain into purpose

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | April 21, 2025
Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance is more than a memoir of Laura Delano’s journey through pain, survival, and recovery. It is a fearless, forensic examination of a psychiatric system that too often harms those it is meant to help.
Instead of merely recounting her own harrowing experience, Delano exposes an industry that, despite its claims of scientific rigour, frequently silences, dismisses, and pathologises those in distress.
What emerges is not just a personal reckoning, but a scathing indictment of modern psychiatry and a call for urgent reform.
As someone who has spent years reporting on the scientific shortcomings of psychiatric drugs—the flimsy trials, the regulatory capture, the financial conflicts—I’ve documented many of the system’s failures.
But I could never portray them with the visceral clarity of someone who’s lived it. Delano gives a voice to the silenced, puts flesh on the statistics, and brings coherence to the chaos so many feel when trapped inside the ‘prison’ of psychiatry.
Last September, I had the opportunity to meet Laura in Connecticut after she reached out in response to some of my investigative reporting.
In person, she was warm, grounded, and intelligent. She and her husband, Cooper Davis, radiated a quiet but unmistakable sense of hard-won purpose. It was clear they hadn’t merely survived the system—they were now working to help others navigate it, through the nonprofit Laura founded: Inner Compass Initiative.
Delano’s descent into psychiatry began at the tender age of 13. She describes a moment standing in front of a mirror, repeating to herself, “I am nothing. I am nothing. I am nothing.”
Instead of seeing this as a young girl’s profound cry for help, psychiatry interpreted it as a pathological symptom—one that demanded medication.
From there, her life became a procession of diagnostic labels and prescriptions. She was rapidly swept into a whirlwind of psychiatric disorders—depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder—each new label reinforcing the falsehood that she was fundamentally broken.
This, I believe, strikes at the heart of psychiatry’s core failure: it strips suffering of context and meaning, and replace it with abstract diagnostic codes.
Alongside the diagnoses came the inevitable avalanche of drugs: Seroquel, Zyprexa, Risperdal, Abilify, Depakote, lithium, Klonopin, Ativan, Ambien, Celexa, Cymbalta, Wellbutrin—the list goes on. But instead of healing her, psychiatry hijacked her identity.
Even I was stunned by the sheer volume and velocity at which she was prescribed drugs. What struck me most was the absence of curiosity from clinicians who should have known better – who never paused to consider whether the treatment itself might be causing harm.
The title Unshrunk captures this journey perfectly. It’s a nod to the profession of “shrinks” while also reclaiming one’s identity—undoing the diminishment that comes from being reduced to diagnoses and drug regimens.
“This book—these pages, this story, my story—is a record that has been unshrunk,” she writes.
Throughout, Delano explains how the system instilled in her the deepening belief that something was fundamentally wrong with her—a belief reinforced at every turn by diagnoses and medications. Her story lays bare a broader truth: psychiatry has a tendency to medicalise ordinary human suffering and pathologise natural responses to life’s challenges.
I know first-hand how taboo it remains to critique psychiatry. Years ago, while producing a two-part documentary series on antidepressants for ABC TV, I spent over a year interviewing patients, researchers, and whistleblowers. We sought to expose the overstated benefits and hidden harms of psychiatric drugs.
But just before broadcast, the series was pulled. Executives feared that telling the truth might prompt people to stop taking their medication. It was a sobering reminder of how tightly controlled this conversation remains—and why voices like Delano’s are so vital.
Predictably, Unshrunk has drawn criticism from legacy media outlets like The Washington Post, which characterised it as a “treatise against psychiatric medications” and lumped it into a “highly predictable” anti-psychiatry genre.
But this knee-jerk framing only highlights how resistant our culture has become to honest, nuanced conversations about mental health.
To be clear, Delano is not “anti-psychiatry” or “anti-medication.” She has explicitly acknowledged that some people find psychiatric drugs helpful. But she also knows many have not been helped—in fact, many have been harmed. Their stories matter too. And that’s exactly what Unshrunk offers – a voice to those erased from the dominant narrative.
This intolerance of dissent is reflected in politics too. When Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently questioned the safety of psychiatric drugs, Senator Tina Smith accused him of spreading “misinformation” that could discourage people from seeking treatment. But Kennedy wasn’t opposing treatment—he was calling for transparency, informed consent, and scientific accountability. As Delano’s memoir makes painfully clear, those are precisely the conversations we should be having.
Delano writes candidly about how psychiatry eroded her sense of self—how she became a “good” patient, internalising every label and obeying every directive.
“I took all of this as objective fact; who was I to question any of it?” she writes.
One especially crucial chapter confronts the now-debunked “chemical imbalance” myth—the idea that depression is caused by a deficiency in serotonin. Delano references the 2022 review in Molecular Psychiatry by Moncrieff et al., which found no convincing evidence to support the serotonin-deficiency theory.
She reflects on how the drugs impaired her capacity to think critically: “For nearly half my life, I’d been under the influence of drugs that had impaired the parts of my brain needed to process, comprehend, retain, and recall information.”
The darkest chapter in Unshrunk—and the one I found most difficult to read—is her suicide attempt. Delano recounts the moment with unflinching honesty. It hit me like a gut punch. But it’s that refusal to sanitise her pain that gives this memoir its extraordinary emotional weight.
And yet, Unshrunk is not without hope. Delano eventually emerges from the depths of despair, scarred but intact, with a renewed sense of purpose.
The pivotal moment came when Delano read Robert Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic, a book that poses a confronting question: why, after decades of soaring psychiatric drug use, are rates of mental illness and disability still climbing?
Drawing on long-term research, Whitaker argues that while psychiatric drugs may offer short-term relief for some, they often lead to worse outcomes over time—and that, on balance, they may be causing more harm than good at a societal level.
The realisation hit Delano like a bolt of lightning: “Holy shit. It’s the fucking meds,” she writes. She wasn’t “treatment-resistant”—the treatment itself had become the source of her suffering, a case of iatrogenic injury.
Delano’s journey to withdraw from psychiatric drugs, however, is another ordeal. At first, she assumes a quick detox will bring quick relief—but she is disastrously wrong.
“The logic seemed simple at the time,” she writes. “I had no idea that I had it backward—that the fastest way to get off and stay off psychiatric drugs successfully… is to taper down slowly. And by ‘slowly’ I don’t mean over a few weeks or months. I mean potentially over years.”
It’s a lesson that remains dangerously absent from much of mainstream psychiatric care, where withdrawal symptoms are routinely mistaken for relapse.
“Coming off psychiatric drugs had been the hardest thing I’d ever done,” she recalls.
At its core, Unshrunk is about reclaiming bodily autonomy. “My body, my choice,” Delano writes—underscoring the way psychiatry frequently undermines consent and personal agency. The harm didn’t just come from the drugs, but from being denied fully informed consent regarding her treatment.
Ultimately, Delano’s message is both sobering and empowering: true healing begins when people are treated not as “broken brains,” but as whole human beings.
“I decided to live beyond labels and categorical boxes,” she writes, “and to reject the dominant role that the American mental health industry has come to play in shaping the way we make sense of what it means to be human.”
Unshrunk is a brave, unsparing account of Delano’s escape from a broken system. At times tormenting, sometimes funny, always courageous—it’s one hell of an emotional rollercoaster.
If you want to understand the lived experience behind psychiatry’s failures, this book is essential reading.
