The coming war on Iran will be regional, perhaps international
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 2, 2025
It is unlikely that the anticipated continuation of the war on Iran, spearheaded by the Israelis but led by the United States, will be confined to a simple tit-for-tat missile trade-off as we saw earlier this year. The reason for this is simple: too much is at stake if this front again flares up.
Since the US-brokered ceasefire between “Israel” and Iran went into effect on June 29, the United States and the Zionist regime have scrambled to move around military equipment, engage in mass surveillance flights over Lebanon and the Persian Gulf. More recently, the US began an early withdrawal of its forces from the Ain al-Assad base and other installations inside Iraq.
The first point of entry to understanding what is currently brewing across West Asia is understanding the mentality at play on both sides of the divide.
On one side, we have the Zionist regime and its Western allies, who are the aggressors and believe themselves to be fighting what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls a “seven-front war”. Although the front in the Gaza Strip has pervaded public consciousness over the past 23 months, overshadowing the wars on Lebanon, seizure of territory in Syria, bombing of Yemen, and attack on Iran, it is very much part of this wider war.
From the Israeli-American perspective, their ongoing war carries the goal of eliminating what is known as the Axis of Resistance, the leader of which is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The thinking clearly is that this period in time has provided a unique opportunity to crush the regional resistance and with it, achieve regime change in Tehran.
In June, the Israelis clearly got ahead of themselves and believed that they could inflict a similar blow in Iran to the blow they inflicted on Lebanese Hezbollah back in September of 2024. In the first few hours of the Zionist Regime’s illegal attack on Iran, their media boasted of landing such a blow. However, to everyone’s surprise, within 15 hours, the Iranians were back on their feet and began firing bursts of ballistic missiles into central “Tel Aviv”.
Even the US strikes didn’t inflict any kind of kill blow that degraded Iran sufficiently, as it proved more than anything that their nuclear facilities could survive US strikes, even if they were badly damaged. The United States certainly poses a major threat to Iran, but the takeaway here is that the Zionist regime can’t take them on alone.
If there is another battle between Iran and the Israelis, the Zionist Entity is already low on interceptor missiles, and its arsenal would be severely drained within around a week or so. We also still do not know the extent of the damage inflicted by Iran’s ballistic missile strikes, due to Israeli military censorship. Simply put, they don’t even allow the public to know the true number of soldiers killed and wounded in Gaza, so forget the notion that they’d admit what Iran did to them.
Another major player here is Lebanese Hezbollah, which appears to be successfully rebuilding itself and is at an intelligence deficit compared to what they had built up over decades and utilized late last year. Yet, what the Israelis do understand is that in the event that a conflict with Iran arises where Hezbollah chooses to enter the fight on the ground, they may face an existential battle for their very survival.
If, and this evidently depends on varying factors, Hezbollah chooses to launch an all-out ground offensive as Iran fires ballistic missiles in bursts across occupied Palestine, it is plausible that the Lebanese party will inflict a total defeat on the Israeli ground forces and seize huge swaths of territory in the north of Palestine.
The Zionist regime is now claiming to be preparing for mission impossible in the Gaza Strip, amassing troops in order to try and occupy Gaza City, an operation that would take between two to five years to complete, according to Israeli military estimates. It would also be extremely costly for the Israeli ground forces and their military vehicles. If they do commit to this, it would leave them open on the northern front. There is, however, the possibility that this is all a bluff.
If the Israelis are bluffing, they could be preparing for an offensive against Lebanon instead. The thinking here would be to try and halt Hezbollah’s rebuilding process, setting it back even further, and could even involve a ground operation, likely using Syrian territory to invade the Bekaa Valley area.
Such a conflict would be existential for Hezbollah, especially as the US works with the Lebanese government to impose a seizure of its weapons. A repeat of what occurred a year ago would work only to advance the US-Israeli goal of seizing Hezbollah’s weapons, while a victory could at the very least liberate Lebanese territory and represent a massive blow to the disarmament agenda.
Therefore, if Iran is currently in the scope of the Zionists, it would make strategic sense for them to either attack Lebanon first or launch a major offensive at the same time it attacks Iran.
The US withdrawal of forces from Iraq is another major indicator of a regional escalation involving Iran, specifically because of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and the potential they have to inflict enormous damage, given that they enter the fold of the war.
Iraq’s PMU is yet to be mobilized, and its role in the ongoing regional conflict has been minimal. The reason for this is that if some 230,000 men are mobilized, or even a portion of them, it is difficult to suddenly put a halt to their operations, and this will mean a dramatic regional escalation, the likes of which the United States will not be able to manage inside Iraq and will instead use their economic levers as a primary weapon of war.
Depending on how far such a conflict is going to go, there is even the possibility that it could go global. While there is currently no evidence to support this notion, there has been talk that the US naval deployment to the Caribbean, triggering a mass militia mobilization across Venezuela, could be connected. Additionally, China and Russia could use the opportunity of a major Iran-US war to carry out some of their long-desired goals, at a time when Washington has diverted its resources to West Asia.
There is again the possibility that another attack on Iran could look similar to what the world witnessed during what is dubbed the “12-day war”, yet the same stalemate outcome would only lead us back to square one again and beget yet another war. At some point, something will have to give.
The reason why the danger of an all-out regional conflagration appears high as of now is purely down to the Israeli-US refusal to end their genocide against Gaza, indicating that they seek total defeat of the Axis of Resistance and nothing less. Inevitably, one side must win and the other lose; there is currently no such thing as deterrence for either side, only who will triumph and carve out a new regional reality.
Seyed M. Marandi: Iran’s ‘End of Time’ Missile Ready for New War
Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that another Israeli/US attack is likely coming, and Iran has prepared itself by developing new and more powerful missiles. Prof. Marandi also argues that the only influence the EU had over Iran was the threat of using the snap-back sanctions, and Iran will no longer listen to the EU, as the decision has been made to impose these sanctions.
Iran: Path for Negotiations with US Not Closed
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 2, 2025
A top Iranian official said a deal with the US is still possible, but Washington must drop its demands to limit Tehran’s missile program. Talks between the US and Iran broke off in June when Israel launched an unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic.
On Tuesday, Ali Larijani posted a statement from the Iranian Supreme National Security Council on X. “The path for negotiations with the US is not closed; yet these are the Americans who only pay lip service to talks and do not come to the table; and they wrongfully blame Iran for it,” he wrote. “WE INDEED PURSUE RATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS. By raising unrealizable issues such as missile restrictions, they set a path which negates any talks.”
Since Donald Trump returned to office, the US and Iran engaged in five rounds of negotiations aimed at establishing a new nuclear agreement and lifting sanctions. A sixth round of talks was scheduled, but Israel attacked Iran, halting the diplomatic process. Iranian officials said the talks were progressing towards a deal before the attack.
The US participated in the Israeli war on Iran. Tehran has demanded that Washington give assurances that the US and Israel will not resume strikes on Iran while the talks are ongoing. However, Trump has not responded to Tehran’s demand and has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran restarts its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump has pressed Iran to agree to a new nuclear agreement after he scrapped the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first administration. The 2015 Iran Nuclear deal established a strict inspection regime and limitations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
After Trump broke the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran exceeded the limits set in the nuclear deal. In response to a series of Israeli assassinations and sabotage attacks, Tehran enriched uranium to a higher level and established a stockpile of 60% enriched Uranium.
Tehran expelled international nuclear inspectors following Israel’s attack on Iran in June.
UN Assembly Moves to Geneva After U.S. Bars Palestinian Delegation
IMEMC | September 2, 2025
The United Nations General Assembly will convene its September session in Geneva instead of New York, following the United States’ refusal to grant entry visas to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and dozens of senior officials.
The relocation marks a rare institutional challenge to the host nation and reflects mounting global frustration over Washington’s obstruction of Palestinian participation amid Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza.
The U.S. State Department justified the visa denial on grounds of “national security,” accusing the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of “undermining peace efforts” through legal appeals to the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
These appeals include formal charges of genocide and apartheid against Israel, claims the U.S. argues breach diplomatic norms and politicize international legal forums.
The decision affects approximately 80 Palestinian officials, although the Palestinian Mission to the UN in New York will continue operating under a limited waiver.
The move has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and international diplomats, who say it violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obligates the host country to facilitate access for all accredited delegations.
In 1988, the UN relocated its session to Geneva after the U.S. denied a visa to Yasser Arafat, then head of the PLO. The current relocation is similarly aimed at ensuring full Palestinian participation, particularly in a scheduled September 22 segment dedicated to Palestinian rights.
European leaders have condemned the U.S. decision. Spain’s Prime Minister described the move as “unjust,” while France reaffirmed that UN platforms must remain accessible to all recognized delegations.
The Geneva session also coincides with growing momentum among several countries, including France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, to formally recognize Palestinian statehood, adding diplomatic weight to the proceedings.
Palestinian officials have denounced the U.S. action as a deliberate attempt to silence their voice at a time when Gaza faces mass displacement, starvation, and what UN experts have described as genocidal violence.
President Abbas is expected to address the Assembly in Geneva, where he will call for international protection, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and accountability for war crimes.
The Geneva session is expected to amplify calls for action under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which empowers the General Assembly to recommend collective measures when the Security Council is unable to act due to political obstruction or lack of consensus.
Advocacy groups are urging the UN to consider deploying international protection forces to Gaza and to suspend Israel’s privileges within the UN system until humanitarian access is restored.
Beyond its logistical implications, the relocation signals a deeper shift in global diplomacy, where procedural justice and international law are being reasserted against political obstruction.
The Geneva gathering is expected to draw high-level delegations, legal experts, and civil society leaders, all converging to confront the worsening crisis and to chart a path forward for Palestinian self-determination.
Department of War?
By Ron Paul | September 2, 2025
Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”
At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.
As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.
With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.
If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.
Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefitted the American people.
Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a “War Department,” however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these “wars” have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.
So go ahead and change it back to the “Department of War.” But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is “defense.” It’s not.
Putin envoy names two global powers for joint projects in Arctic
RT | September 2, 2025
Russia views both the US and China as potential partners for future oil and gas projects in the Arctic and would consider three-way investment opportunities, according to Kirill Dmitriev, President Vladimir Putin’s aide on international economic affairs.
Moscow and Beijing already cooperate closely on state-sponsored economic initiatives. China has invested more than 700 billion rubles ($8.7 billion) in over 50 projects facilitated by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Dmitriev, its CEO, told reporters on Tuesday in Beijing.
Dmitriev has played a central role in normalization efforts with Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January. He argues that joint ventures, particularly in the energy-rich and largely untapped Arctic, would offer significant economic benefits, should the two nations overcome their differences.
“Russo-Chinese projects are happening right now. Russo-American projects happened in the past and have the potential to happen in the future,” Dmitriev said, when asked about Russia’s positioning relative to the two rival superpowers.
“Russia is considering potential Russo-Sino-American opportunities, including in the Arctic and in the energy industry,” he added. “Investors could gain value by joining forces. Also, joint-investment can serve as a stabilizing element for future political interactions.”
Successive US presidents have branded China a primary geopolitical rival. Trump administration officials have accused previous governments of driving Moscow closer to Beijing by backing Kiev.
Russia and China describe their partnership as a long-standing strategic choice grounded in shared values. Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated Beijing’s commitment to a fairer multipolar world order during this week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin attended along with leaders from Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
US escalates its crawling aggression on Venezuela as Caracas prepares defenses
By Drago Bosnic | September 2, 2025
The United States Navy (USN) and Marine Corps (USMC) keep increasing their military presence in the Southern Caribbean, more specifically in the vicinity of Venezuela’s coast. The last days of August saw a significant uptick in their activity, including American warships in eastbound transit through the Panama Canal. Only a week prior, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated that US President Donald Trump was “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into [the country] and to bring those responsible to justice”, also insisting that “many Caribbean nations and many nations in the region” supposedly “applauded the administration’s counterdrug operations and efforts”.
Interestingly, Mrs. Leavitt never mentioned which specific countries support such actions, nor did she explain how exactly warships armed with medium-range cruise missiles can be used in the supposed “heightened counternarcotics efforts”. Worse yet, the increasingly belligerent Trump administration is openly accusing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of supposedly “heading a narco cartel”, using it as a pretext to escalate its crawling aggression on the South American nation. The US State Department website unequivocally says that President Maduro allegedly “helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials”. Expectedly, without verifiable evidence.
“As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns”, the accusation reads.
“In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices,” the website adds, also claiming: “After initially offering a reward offer of up to $15 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Maduro in 2020, the Department of State on January 10, 2025, increased the reward offer to up to $25 million. On August 7, 2025, the Department announced the further increase in the reward offer to up to $50 million after the Department of Treasury sanctioned Cartel of the Suns as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on July 25, 2025.”
The US also brags that “Maduro, as leader of Cartel of the Suns, is the first target in the history of the Narcotics Rewards Program with a reward offer exceeding $25 million”. Once again, there’s zero evidence to support a single claim on President Maduro’s “corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy”. On the other hand, Washington DC has no qualms about backing actual narco-terrorist entities, such as the Albanian extremists currently based in NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia, to say nothing of well over half a century of CIA-run drug-related back ops in virtually every country south of the Rio Grande. However, despite decades of sanctions and other forms of pressure, Caracas refuses to budge.
During his first term, Trump was particularly aggressive toward both Venezuela and Iran. Back in 2017, he threatened that the US has “many options, including a possible military option, if necessary”. He made similar statements with regards to Tehran, although he never acted on either during his previous presidency. However, Trump is now far more belligerent and has attacked Iran. Although it largely failed (despite his insistence that it was a “total success”), this demonstrates his willingness to engage in direct armed aggression. American forces in the region are far too few to allow a full-blown invasion, but they’re enough to be used in limited long-range precision strikes, likely on critical infrastructure (particularly in coastal regions).
Washington DC certainly understands this would be nowhere near enough to defeat the Venezuelan military, but it’s possible that the Trump administration is hoping to destabilize Caracas politically. For instance, destroying or damaging the remaining oil refineries would disrupt normal economic activity and exacerbate the Latin American country’s troubles that stem from illegal US sanctions and constant pressure. In turn, Washington DC probably expects protests to erupt or even a full-blown rebellion. This approach is quite common whenever the US finds it more challenging to invade directly. And indeed, Venezuela’s complex geography effectively makes it a combination of Afghanistan and Vietnam, which is an absolute nightmare for any remotely sensible military planner.
Venezuela already deployed around 15,000 troops in the states of Zulia and Táchira (both bordering Colombia). These units are mostly comprised of special police and military personnel, indicating that Caracas is worried about cross-border raids and infiltration. Such measures are perfectly understandable given America’s propensity to use sabotage and terrorist attacks to undermine targeted countries. Back in 2020, the CIA launched the so-called “Operation Gideon” precisely from Colombia, with two boats carrying approximately 60 insurgents commanded by two former members of the US Army Special Forces (better known as “Green Berets”). Both were employed as mercenaries by Silvercorp USA, a Florida-based PMC.
Such private military enterprises are quite common in the US and are used by the Pentagon in order to maintain plausible deniability in case of failure. Precisely this happened to “Operation Gideon”, which was effectively some sort of Trump’s “mini-Bay of Pigs” moment. This failure was attributed to multiple factors, with several US intelligence services accusing one another of “major security breaches”. In fact, back in January, Jordan Goudreau, the head of Silvercorp (himself a former “Green Beret”), accused the CIA and FBI of “sabotaging the operation”. However, whether that’s true or not is irrelevant, as Venezuela needs to be prepared for any similar incursions, particularly now that such actions might serve as the vanguard of direct US aggression.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Sahra Wagenknecht: Europe Subjugated & Propagandised for War
Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025
Sahra Wagenknecht is a prominent figure in German politics, a former member of the Bundestag and the European Parliament. Wagenknecht discusses Europe’s suborindation to the US, the need for an external enemy, the demonisation of Russia, and war enthusiasm that is destroying Europe.
Washington orders sweeping visa ban on Palestinian passport holders
The Cradle | September 1, 2025
The US State Department ordered a suspension of visas for nearly everyone holding a Palestinian passport, the New York Times (NYT) reported on 31 August.
The report said the restrictions go well beyond an earlier order under US President Donald Trump, which temporarily froze visitor visas for Gaza residents pending what officials described as “a full and thorough” review.
A diplomatic cable obtained by CNN and signed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 18 August instructed embassies and consulates to deny applications “effective immediately” from “all otherwise eligible Palestinian Authority passport holders” using that document.
The order covers nonimmigrant visas of all categories, including those for students, professors, tourists, businesspeople, and medical patients.
The cable noted that the refusal policy does not apply to immigrant visas or to applicants using a different passport, but said the ban includes diplomatic and official visas, while stressing that Washington “does NOT recognize the PA as a ‘foreign government.’”
NYT cited unidentified officials as the source of the expanded measures.
On 29 August, Rubio revoked visas for Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders who were scheduled to attend the UN General Assembly in New York.
The State Department justified that step by pointing to PA payments to families of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, as well as PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to issue a “constitutional declaration” for an independent Palestinian state at the assembly.
Washington also criticized Palestinian efforts to pursue Israel for war crimes before international courts.
“The Palestinian Authority must also cease its attempts to circumvent the negotiations through international legal campaigns, including appeals to the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and efforts to secure unilateral recognition of a possible Palestinian state,” the department said in a statement.
It added that such steps had “contributed significantly to Hamas’s refusal to release its hostages and the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire talks.”
The Palestinian Presidency responded with “deep regret and astonishment at the decision.”
Fox News described Rubio’s order as a “historic departure” from past US practice of allowing participation in UN forums.
The announcement came one day after Rubio met Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar in Washington. When asked about a Palestinian state, Saar told the Jerusalem Post that “there would not be one.”
What drives Americans to fight on the frontlines of Gaza’s war crimes
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | September 1, 2025
Serving in the military is the ultimate test of loyalty. When young Americans raise their right hand, they pledge to defend their nation, their Constitution, their people. Yet for many young Americans, that oath is NOT made to the United States military. Instead, they pack their bags, fly across the Atlantic, and enlist in a foreign army—the Israeli War Machine, aka, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).
The numbers speak loudly. According to the Washington Post, 23,000 Jewish American citizens are currently serving in the Israeli military. By contrast, US Department of Defence data shows that in 2006 fewer than 4,000 American service members identified as Jewish. A later DoD report in January 2019 placed the figure at roughly 0.4 per cent of active-duty personnel. Put simply, more Jewish Americans, both in numbers and percentage, serve under the misappropriated Star of David than under the Stars and Stripes.
Naturally, many new Americans maintain personal cultural and ancestral ties to their homelands—a land they actually come from, with real last names, not Hebraized East European family names. No ethnic group, however, has a lobby dedicated to serving the policy of a foreign country, like AIPAC. Mexican Americans celebrate Mexico’s victory on Cinco de Mayo, but do not promote enlisting in Mexico’s military. Irish Americans rejoice Saint Patrick’s Day, but had not lined up to join the Irish Republican Army. No ethnic American group raises nonprofit tax deductible funds for a foreign army, other than the Jewish billionaires, who bankroll “Friends of the IDF.”
Controlled by this foreign lobby, Congress not only tolerates the Israeli exception, rather it tries to reward it. Two Jewish Republican lawmakers; Guy Reschenthaler and Max Miller, have proposed legislation, H.R. 8445, to amend the American Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to include (Jewish) Americans serving in the Israeli army. If passed, the amendment would grant these “foreign” soldiers the same benefits reserved for Americans in uniform.
Let that sink in: Israeli (American) soldiers would have the same protections as American army soldiers. An Israeli who is starving babies and committing war crimes in Gaza, would be legally indistinguishable from an American marine guarding Camp Pendleton in California.
When it comes to Israel, AIPAC, through the disproportionate Jewish representation in both Houses—three to five times higher than their share of the U.S. adult population—exerts outsized clout. Combine this with the campaign finance power over elected officials, AIPAC can flex its muscles to institutionalize the Israeli exception. One could pose the question, if this is good for Israeli (American) soldiers, why not provide all Americans serving in foreign armies the same benefits? Maybe for a Muslim American soldier, if any, serving in Pakistan or Egypt. Such an idea would most likely cause a revolt in Washington. Accusations of dual loyalty, even treason, would dominate the headlines. If so, why not in the Israeli case?
One of those soldiers is David Meyers from California who spent six years in the Israeli navy. He explained his decision to enlist in the Israeli military, citing “… an incredibly deep and long connection that I have to Israel.” Answering a question for reasons he chose a foreign army over his own, his answer was more telling: “The United States with its strength and size, perhaps, isn’t quite needing your abilities and your efforts.”
Since when did America’s strength become an excuse to abandon it for a foreign army? Regardless, Meyers’s statement suggests he does not have a deep or long connection to the country of his birth—or at least not one as deep as to a foreign country. America is strong only because its citizens choose to serve it, not ditch it in favor of a foreign uniform. To dismiss the U.S. military as too mighty to need Jewish Americans isn’t about necessity, it’s about misplaced loyalty.
Many of the Americans serving in the Israeli army are called lone soldiers. They are the young Americans with New York or Texas accents; I’ve encountered at occupation checkpoints throughout Palestine. Their job is to humiliate Palestinians in the West Bank, and starve children in Gaza.
Some may frame their service as defending “the Jewish people.” When in fact, they are fueling Jewish hate in the West for being the face of the “Jewish-only” colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, or for imposing an apartheid occupation on behalf of a foreign political entity, whose leaders stand indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
With this in mind, these Americans are participating in what the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have described as war crimes—from the engineered starvation of babies in Gaza, to the subjugation of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. As the ICC continues to investigate Israeli crimes, one day, these “Americans” could face reality, not as heroes, but for their roles in the crimes against humanity. Ironically, Congress wants to make these potential war criminals equal to American servicemembers.
The numbers do not lie. Over-represented in elected offices, and underrepresented in the U.S. military, Jewish Americans enlist in the Israeli army at more than five times the rate they serve in their own country’s forces. This begs the question: why are so many Jewish Americans more willing to die for a foreign country than for nations that gave them everything they have? That is not an anti-Jewish statement; it is a fact that would, and should uniformly apply to any ethnic group.
If some Jewish Americans choose to devote their lives and loyalty to a foreign state, that is their business. However, it is an insult to every American in uniform when Congress considers equating American soldiers with those serving in a foreign army. Worse, by ignoring the moral and legal ramifications, U.S. policymakers risk entangling America in war crimes committed by these “paper” American citizens, crimes that may one day be judged in The Hague, and for which today’s members of Congress should be held to account by their own constituents.
Tribal loyalty, often disguised as religious or nationalistic virtue, distorts judgment and blinds individuals to injustice, elevating kinship above truth, morality, and humanity. It is this tribal blindness that drives some Jewish Americans to join a foreign army, and stain their souls with the blood of Gaza’s war crimes.
Intel chiefs behind Russiagate should be arrested – Trump

RT | August 31, 2025
US President Donald Trump has said he would not mind seeing ex-FBI Director James Comey and ex-CIA Director John Brennan handcuffed and arrested live on TV due to their alleged role in the Russiagate hoax.
Trump made the remarks in an interview with the Daily Caller published on Saturday, stating that it would “not bother [him] at all” if the two former intel chiefs end up in custody.
“What they did is a disgrace. They cheated, they lied, they did so many bad things, evil things that were so bad for the country, and because they did something to me that should have never been done, nobody thought they’d ever do that,” Trump stated.
“They should be [arrested] because they’re crooked and they got caught,” he added.
The situation with Brennan and Comey is different from what the US administration had on its hands with Hillary Clinton, Trump suggested, apparently referring to the email controversy dating back to her tenure as the US secretary of state.
“Hillary’s a good example. We had Hillary cold. I didn’t want to see that. I didn’t want the, you know, the wife of a president, to go to jail, but she was stone cold guilty of things,” Trump stated.
The Trump administration launched a probe into the Russiagate hoax shortly after the US president assumed the post for the second time early this year. The investigation has been spearheaded by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has repeatedly pledged to get to the bottom of what she described as a “treasonous conspiracy” to delegitimize Trump’s 2016 election victory and a “years-long coup.”
Since mid-July, Gabbard has released multiple documents that allegedly expose a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials, as well as structures linked to billionaire George Soros, to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia.
Moscow has consistently denied any interference in the 2016 election, with Russian officials describing the allegations as a product of partisan infighting. The Russiagate scandal heavily damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, resulting in sanctions, asset seizures, and a further erosion of diplomatic engagement.
COVID Vaccines ‘Unleashed Profound Harm’ New Peer-Reviewed Paper Says
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 29, 2025
A new peer-reviewed study suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 shows signs of “deliberate engineering” and that these features, including the spike protein also found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, are responsible for widespread health harms globally.
The study, authored by 11 scientific and legal experts, was published in the fall edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The authors argue that the man-made features of SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are likely the outcome of controversial gain-of-function research, in violation of the United Nations’ Biological Weapons Convention.
Gain-of-function research, which increases the transmissibility or virulence of viruses, is frequently used in vaccine development.
According to the paper, the spread of COVID-19 — followed by the rollout of mRNA vaccines — resulted in unprecedented health harms, ranging from “autoimmune diseases and cardiovascular catastrophes to pregnancy complications and aggressive cancers.”
“Far from benign, these vaccines have unleashed profound harm, disrupting nearly every system of the human body and contributing to unprecedented levels of morbidity and mortality,” the paper states.
Dr. Andrew Zywiec, principal physician at Zywiec & Porter, is the paper’s lead author. He said the paper reveals a “pattern of harm too consistent, too pervasive to be dismissed as chance.” He added:
“The systemic toxicity unleashed by these interventions, manifesting as autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular devastation, aggressive cancers, and catastrophic reproductive harms, represents not merely a public health failure but a profound betrayal of trust.”
Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who filed a lawsuit to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida, said the paper is “extremely significant” as it is “the first peer-reviewed journal article stating that both COVID and the COVID injections violate the Biological Weapons Convention and that both COVID-19 and the COVID injections are biological weapons.”
SARS-CoV-2 virus ‘indicative of laboratory manipulation’
According to the paper, the SARS-CoV-2 virus “displays multiple genomic features indicative of laboratory manipulation,” including its furin cleavage site, which “enhances infectivity” and which is “absent in SARS-like viruses found in nature.”
Several other features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus “enhance immunological evasion and aerosol transmissibility,” making the virus “unusually durable … and five times more stable in air” than other respiratory viruses.
“These combined traits, along with the virus’s mutation patterns, are strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 could not have evolved naturally,” the paper states.
The paper cites two peer-reviewed journal articles by military scientists stating that SARS-CoV-2 contained “evidence of manipulation” that makes the virus an “attractive pathogen” due to its features, which resemble those of a biological weapon.
These manipulations “represent a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” the paper argues.
Enacted in 1975, the convention “effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons.” Nearly 200 countries have signed it.
Paper accuses Fauci of deliberately concealing SARS-CoV-2 origins
According to the paper, gain-of-function research involves “viral manipulation techniques” that can lead to the development of pathogens that are banned under the convention.
Yet, the U.S. government — particularly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci until 2022 — has long been involved in gain-of-function research, “including a long-standing collaboration between U.S.-funded institutions and the Wuhan Institute of Virology” in China.
Proponents of the “lab-leak theory” of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 argue that gain-of-function research at the Wuhan laboratory and a subsequent leak led to the global outbreak of COVID-19, which was covered up.
In April, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan lab. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and several foreign intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.
The paper refers to Project DEFUSE, a proposal the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan scientists submitted to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 2018. Although the proposal was rejected, it described the creation of coronaviruses with features that enhanced their infectivity, including the furin cleavage site.
EcoHealth Alliance and its former president, Peter Daszak, Ph.D., collaborated with Wuhan researchers. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization had failed to properly monitor risky coronavirus experiments.
The paper states that Fauci and the U.S. Intelligence Community never disclosed the existence of the research. Instead, “they obfuscated what is, in fact, proof of intent to produce a virus much like the one that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The paper cites a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference with Fauci and key virologists, including several of the co-authors of the now-infamous “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper. The paper, which promoted the natural origin of COVID-19, was published in Nature Medicine in March 2020.
Although several of the co-authors of “Proximal Origin” expressed doubts that SARS-CoV-2 developed naturally, Fauci “aimed to suppress” such concerns during the Feb. 1, 2020, call.
“Proximal Origin” became one of the most-cited papers of 2020 and has been accessed over 6 million times. In 2023, The Nation reported that over 2,000 media outlets cited the paper.
The U.S. government, the scientific community and the media subsequently used “Proximal Origin” to promote the “zoonotic” — or natural origin — theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and to discredit proponents of the “lab-leak theory.”
“The deliberate concealment of critical genomic features delayed public awareness and pandemic mitigation efforts, potentially allowing wider spread and more deaths,” the paper states.
In May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that paused gain-of-function research in the U.S. for 120 days while a new regulatory framework is developed. It also ended U.S. funding for such research in some countries.
Spike protein poses ‘potential for irreversible harm’
According to the paper’s authors, the development of SARS-CoV-2 — and the COVID-19 features that contain similar gain-of-function properties — resulted in significant harm to global public health.
The paper references statistics from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database which show a significantly increased incidence of myocarditis (151.4%), pulmonary embolism (43.6%), ovarian dysfunction (34.9%), hypertensive disease (22.9%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (14.9%), esophageal cancer (12.5%) and breast cancer (7%) in 2021, the year the COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out globally.
Additional U.S. military data cited in the paper show “persistent elevations” in myocarditis, digestive organ cancer, brain cancer and other injuries between 2022 and 2025.
Reproductive harms also significantly increased following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, the paper argues. It cites data from sources including the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), Pfizer’s 2021 post-marketing surveillance report and its Phase 2/3 clinical trial data for its COVID-19 shot, showing increased miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
The paper cites the spike protein in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as one of the likely factors for the increased incidence of cancers and other health conditions in recent years.
“Prolonged protein expression, exemplified by S1 spike protein detection more than 700 days post-COVID vaccination, underscores the potential for irreversible harm,” the paper states.
The paper argues that suppression of “proven or promising treatments” such as hydroxychloroquine in favor of universal COVID-19 vaccine mandates — and the policy decision to implement mass vaccination during the pandemic — further exacerbated global public health and had “damaging effects on public trust.”
Growing calls to suspend mRNA vaccines
The paper was published just as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ended its broad authorization of COVID-19 vaccines earlier this week, restricting the shots to people at higher risk for severe illness.
Earlier this month, HHS announced it canceled nearly $500 million in contracts and grants for the development of mRNA vaccines.
A growing number of scientists have called for the suspension or withdrawal of mRNA vaccines. The paper’s authors said their findings strengthen these calls. They stated:
“The surge in autoimmune diseases, aggressive cancers, pregnancy losses, cardiovascular fatalities, societal fragmentation, and the looming risks of advanced mRNA platforms demand an immediate halt to mRNA vaccine and biologic use, comprehensive investigations into the motives behind this unprecedented violation of public trust, and robust measures to restore safe therapeutics and ethical public health practices.”
Dr. Irene Mavrakakis, one of the paper’s co-authors and a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, said the paper supports calls for “complete recall of all COVID-19 vaccines and biologics and a moratorium on all mRNA biologics.”
Mavrakakis also called for the “criminal prosecution of decision-makers who were criminally negligent and failed in their duties.” She said vaccine manufacturers should be stripped of the immunity they enjoy under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) of 2005.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, agreed. He said gain-of-function research “will always have its cheerleaders,” but humanity faces “extreme risk and inevitably pays a heavy price for that research.”
“Labs can and do leak,” he said. “One singular event at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in late 2019 caused innumerable suffering and death. Until we can construct a leak-proof lab, we shouldn’t be assembling world-ravaging viruses in them.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

