Bogota Summit launches Global South’s legal intifada against Israel and US impunity
By José Niño | The Cradle | July 17, 2025
From 15–16 July, Bogota became the unlikely capital of a global insurrection against western legal impunity. Over 30 countries – including key powers from the Global South and even some European states – gathered in the Colombian capital for the Hague Group Emergency Summit.
This was the most ambitious multilateral initiative yet to directly confront what participants unflinchingly termed Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the broader culture of impunity that has shielded the occupation state since 1948.
From steadfast client to anti-imperial spearhead
That the summit was held in Colombia – a long-standing US vassal in Latin America – was not incidental. Once regarded as Washington’s most loyal client in the hemisphere, Colombia’s dramatic pivot under President Gustavo Petro represents the boldest regional defiance of US authority in decades.
Petro, who severed diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv in 2024, has placed Bogota on a collision course with the US over his unwavering opposition to the occupation state’s onslaught in Gaza.
Washington reacted predictably by issuing warnings to allies against the “weaponization of international law,” and sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her “illegitimate and shameful efforts” to advance the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutions of Israeli and US officials. Bogota responded with direct defiance. In the run-up to the summit, Petro publicly backed Albanese, declaring that “the multilateral system of states cannot be destroyed,” in a thinly veiled rejection of US diktats.
Over 30 nations participated, including the eight founding members of the Hague Group – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa. They were joined by more than 20 additional states spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia, and even Europe.
The participation of European countries such as Portugal and Spain was noteworthy. Both states only established full diplomatic relations with Israel in the latter part of the 20th century: Portugal in 1977 and Spain in 1986, emblematic of their historic caution over Israel’s contested legitimacy.
But since Tel Aviv’s genocidal war on Gaza began in late 2023, Madrid has adopted a string of punitive diplomatic moves.
Spain canceled a €6.6 million (around $7.2 million) ammunition purchase from an Israeli firm, scrapped a €285 million (around $310.7 million) anti-tank missile deal with the Spanish subsidiary of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, banned Israeli weapons from port entry, formally recognized Palestinian statehood, and pushed to suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement.
Though neither European state fully endorsed all of Bogota’s proposals, their participation and scathing denunciations of Israeli policy reflect a deeper fracture within Europe over Tel Aviv’s legitimacy and the cost of complicity.
Laying the legal gauntlet
Central to the summit was a blistering legal and moral condemnation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The Hague Group issued a detailed catalog of war crimes: the mass killing of over 57,000 civilians, the targeting of hospitals and schools, the weaponization of starvation and siege, and the deliberate use of forced displacement.
The apartheid state in the occupied West Bank, enforced through racial segregation, parallel legal systems, and land confiscations for settlements, was cited as a textbook violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and, per the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion, a breach of international prohibitions against forced territorial acquisition and apartheid.
Francesca Albanese delivered the summit’s keynote, setting the tone with an uncompromising indictment:
“For too long, international law has been treated as optional – applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful … That era must end.”
The ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing crimes such as starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate civilian targeting, and the murder of Palestinian non-combatants – were repeatedly invoked as a historic turning point.
The Resistance Axis of lawfare
The summit’s ethos was clearly to rupture the impunity enabled by the UN Security Council’s paralysis. The Hague Group, founded in January 2025, framed itself as the Global South’s corrective to a postwar order that protects violators so long as they are shielded by US power.
That paralysis, most attendees argued, was not accidental but structural: The P5 veto system ensures impunity for those, such as Israel and its allies.
Meeting in the San Carlos Palace, delegates from 12 states – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa – announced six binding measures. These included a full arms embargo on the occupation state, port bans for Israeli military vessels, contract reviews to terminate commercial complicity with the occupation, and firm support for domestic and international prosecution of Israeli officials.
These policies were anchored in the ICJ’s 2024 opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal and the UN General Assembly’s September 2024 resolution urging decisive global action within 12 months.
A global rift – but still an uphill battle
Despite the breakthrough, significant limitations remain. Only 12 states adopted the measures outright. Others were given until the UN General Assembly in September to sign on. Key powers, including China, withheld endorsement – despite supporting the initiative’s aims – likely due to economic entanglements with Israel, including port infrastructure investments.
Organizers acknowledged the uphill road ahead: absent broader UN uptake and stronger alignment from economic powers, Washington’s veto and European hesitation could neuter the Hague Group’s legal insurgency. But the coalition remains adamant that justice is no longer negotiable.
Colombian Vice Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir captured the summit’s urgency:
“The Palestinian genocide threatens the entire international system … The participating states will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action.”
A warning – and a promise
The Bogota summit was not just another international conference. It openly challenged the post-1945 legal fiction of a “rules-based order” – a system long exposed as a euphemism for western prerogative.
As South Africa’s International Relations Minister, Roland Lamola, asserted
“No country is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered.”
Yet the struggle remains unfinished. The Hague Group’s bold confrontation with Israeli impunity marks a decisive break, but the future of this legal uprising hinges on whether its momentum can breach the fortified walls of New York and The Hague, and whether powers like China, India, and Brazil shift from quiet endorsement to active alignment.
On 16 July, as thousands gathered in Plaza Bolivar in support, the message was unambiguous: either the era of impunity ends, or the legitimacy of the global order collapses with it.
Between China & USA: Australia chooses trade over geopolitics
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 17, 2025
While the Trump administration doubles down on its ‘America First’ approach to reshaping global power dynamics, key allies like Australia are quietly charting their own course—rebalancing relations with China in ways that may diverge from Washington’s long-term strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albances was supposed to meet Donald Trump on the sidelines of G7 summit in Canada. The meeting did not take place, as Trump left the summit in the middle of Iran-Israel war. While such diplomatic snubs would normally raise eyebrows, Canberra seemed unperturbed. Instead, Albanese’s subsequent high-profile visit to Beijing sent a clear message: for Australia, economic pragmatism continues to trump imperatives of ideological or geopolitical alignment. With trade relations with China showing signs of recovery after years of friction, the visit underscored Australia’s effort to navigate a delicate path between its largest trading partner and its key strategic ally.
This calibrated diplomacy comes at a time of renewed uncertainty surrounding the AUKUS pact—a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the US, and the UK aimed at equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to bolster its naval presence in the Indo-Pacific to check Chinese advances. The deal, worth tens of billions of dollars, is currently under review by the Trump administration in Washington. This review includes calls for Australia by the Trump administration to increase its defense spending and overall contributions to the pact, further highlighting Canberra’s growing dependence on the whims of US domestic politics.
This visit comes against the backdrop of the fact that AUKUS, while it offers an unprecedented opportunity to Australia to acquire modern systems, also exposes a deeper vulnerability: Australia’s limited ability to shape the strategic direction of its own neighborhood, caught as it is between economic ties with China and defense commitments to an America that may no longer see alliances as sacrosanct. In this shifting landscape, Australia’s challenge is not just about balancing Beijing and Washington. It’s about asserting agency in an Indo-Pacific increasingly shaped by volatility, mistrust, and great-power rivalry. This assertion has once led it to redefine its ties with China.
Australia’s recalibration is not taking place in a vacuum. There is considerable domestic political support for this policy. Despite how Washington portrays China as a ‘threat’, within Australia, only a minority considers China to be a threat. A majority of the Australians see ties with China as a complex configuration that nonetheless should—and can be—managed because it is ultimately beneficial. Even within China, this publicly backed support for better ties with China and Canberra’s efforts to mutually balance ties between the US and China is clearly well received and understood. China’s state newspaper Global Times says Albanese’s visit “carries special significance” and shows “Australia’s desire to seek more reliable partners in an uncertain world order… with China being the obvious choice”. There is little denying this. China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and Albanese’ visit is about furthering these ties. As reports indicate, Albanese is accompanied by a business delegation to the cities of Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu for his six-day trip. His official itinerary included meetings with groups involved in business, tourism and sports.
From AUKUS to new forms of bilateral and multilateral trade
In this context, therefore, many observers view the Australian Prime Minister’s recent visit to China as a strategic step toward reinvigorating economic ties and potentially paving the way for China’s entry into the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Australia, which currently chairs the CPTPP, plays a central role in shaping the pact’s direction. The CPTPP evolved from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the United States withdrew in 2017 under President Trump. China formally applied for CPTPP membership in 2021 and continues to lobby for inclusion.
Beijing is increasingly framing its engagement with Canberra within the broader context of a new multilateralism represented by the CPTPP—one that spans beyond the Indo-Pacific to include countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. Underscoring its commitment to deepening trade ties in all possible ways, the Chinese ambassador to Australia has published op-eds in major Australian newspapers emphasizing Beijing’s willingness to deepen bilateral economic partnership, even highlighting emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence as potential areas of collaboration.
The core message from Chinese officials has been consistent: China does not view Australia as an adversary, and there is ample room for peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. With no direct territorial disputes or major political conflicts between the two nations, this message has found a receptive audience in parts of the Australian political landscape. Labor senator Raff Ciccone, who chairs the Australian Parliament’s security committee in Australia, recently stated that economic engagement with China can play a stabilizing role. “When there’s trade, when there’s dialogue, when there’s economic interests at play,” he said, “countries are less likely to engage in the worst-case scenario, which is war.” In other words, Australia, too, does not necessarily view China as a foe. Albanese’ visit may thus not only reset diplomatic relations but also signal Australia’s openness to a broader regional vision where economic pragmatism and strategic dialogue can go hand-in-hand.
This will not go unnoticed in the White House as well. However, what matters is how the Trump administration responds or can possibly respond. Either it could threaten to withdraw from AUKUS and focus more on developing its own resources or it could double down on its commitment to shoring up Australian naval capability. However, as long as Washington continues to lack a viable programme to reverse China’s economic dominance in Australia specifically and the Indo-Pacific generally, countries like Australia will continue to maneuver in ways that best serve their interests. It is increasingly clear in Australia that their trade interests are best served by having stable ties with China. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Australia’s ties with China and the US must not be mutually exclusive. This, for China, is a major victory.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
China Ready to Work With SCO Countries to Restore Peace in Middle East
Sputnik – 17.07.2025
China is ready to cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member countries and the international community to promote a political settlement and the speedy restoration of peace in the Middle East, the Chinese Foreign Ministry told Sputnik on Thursday.
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asked the SCO to promptly consider the situation with Israel’s aggression against the Islamic Republic, as well as to provide Tehran with political support in light of the June conflict with the Jewish state.
“The peoples of China and Iran are bound by traditional friendship. China is committed to maintaining friendly cooperation with Iran in order to benefit the peoples of both countries and bring positive factors to maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said when asked to comment on Iran’s request to the SCO.
The ministry noted that “the situation in the region currently remains complex and sensitive.”
“China is ready to cooperate with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the international community to uphold peace, promote a political settlement and quickly restore peace and stability in the Middle East, which meets the common interests of the countries in the region and the international community,” the ministry added.
Iran: World bodies giving up legitimacy, ‘sense of mission’ to bullying, unilateralism
Press TV – July 17, 2025
Iran says the imposition of US sanctions targeting a UN-appointed human rights expert and the mass resignation of members of the UN Palestine inquiry show that the world bodies are no longer allowed to even record the truth.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in a post on his X account on Thursday after the US on July 9 announced punitive measures against Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, while all three members of the UN commission investigating crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories submitted their resignations on Monday.
In his post, Baghaei said the sanctions and the resignations should not be taken lightly as they are an “alarming sign of the erosion of the global legal and normative order.”
“International institutions are giving up their legitimacy, effectiveness, authority and ‘sense of mission’ to militant bullying & radical unilateralism,” the Iranian spokesperson wrote.
He said future generations would affirm that silence, indifference, and double standards in the face of grave injustices and wars led to the collapse of the world normative order.
Albanese, independent from the UN bureaucracy, operates under a UN Human Rights Council mandate. She has faced repeated smears and threats from Israeli officials and lobby groups for her accurate, evidence-based reporting on the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Despite growing political backlash, human rights defenders continue to raise the alarm over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.
Since October 2023, the Israeli regime has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians—most of them civilians, women, and children—amid widespread destruction and blockade-induced starvation.
No Due Process at Gitmo
By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | July 17, 2025
Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., invalidated a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has been incarcerated at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for 20 years. Mohammed has been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder in the United States on 9/11. Originally, the federal government blamed Osama bin Laden as the 9/11 mastermind. Then, after bin Laden was murdered in his home in Pakistan by the feds, they decided that Mohammed was the real mastermind. Bin Laden had never been charged with any crimes in the U.S.
After 20 years of litigation, the feds and Mohammed and his lawyers entered into a written plea agreement. The agreement, which was sought and drafted by the prosecutors, relieved them of the intractable burden of defending torture in a public courtroom and removed the death penalty from the menu of penalties available for imposition upon the defendant.
Both sides presented the plea agreement to the military judge, who held hearings on its voluntariness, after which he accepted the plea agreement and all parties reasonably believed they had a guilty plea on their hands — a valid, freely negotiated, publicly accepted, lawful guilty plea.
Then, Lloyd Austin, who was the Secretary of Defense at the time, decided that the Biden administration did not want to answer for allowing the 9/11 mastermind to escape the federal death penalty. So, he ordered the same legal team that sought and negotiated and actually drafted the guilty plea to ask the trial judge to vacate it. Following standard criminal procedure, the court upheld the agreement as a binding, judicially approved contract between the United States government and Mohammed.
Then the feds appealed this denial to a military court of appeals, which also upheld the plea agreement. Thereupon the feds appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, last week, on a 2 to 1 vote, rejected the plea, holding that the decision was Austin’s to make; and it didn’t matter if he said no well after the agreement had been entered.
Here is the backstory.
Due process has numerous definitions and aspects, but for constitutional purposes it basically means that all charged persons are presumed innocent and entitled to a written notice of the charges, a speedy and fair hearing before a neutral fact finder, a right to appeal; and the entire process imbued with fairness and a profound recognition of personal innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process also explicitly prohibits the use of torture.
In order to ensure that due process and habeas corpus — the right to compel the jailer to justify one’s confinement — would trump the whims of government officials, stated differently, to ensure that the British system of torture and confession and conviction did not occur here, James Madison and the Framers crafted protections in the Constitution to which all in government needed to swear allegiance and support.
Fast forward to Gitmo, and you can see the constitutional system turned on its head.
This George W. Bush-crafted American Devil’s Island, which costs $500 million a year to operate, once held 780 prisoners, allegedly there due to their personal involvement in the war on terror against the United States. Not a single one of them has been convicted of 9/11-related crimes, and only one former detainee is currently serving time in an American federal prison.
Nearly all the prisoners were tortured, and most were captured by roving militias and sold to American forces for bounties. Last year, the Biden administration laudably released 11 detainees, all of whom had been at Gitmo for 20-plus years and none of whom had even been charged with a crime.
The best known of the remaining 15 prisoners is Mohammed, who was scheduled for trial when the military judge in his case retired. The new judge — the fifth on the case — was confronted with the daunting task of reading 40,000 pages of transcripts and documents concerning the torture of Mohammed by U.S. personnel.
At the same time, a new team of military and civilian prosecutors was assigned to the case and the new prosecutors told their bosses in the Pentagon, chief among whom was Austin, and the new military judge that unlike their predecessors — who sought to mitigate the 183 torture sessions U.S. personnel administered to Mohammed — they were prepared to acknowledge it and decline to use any evidence obtained from it in the courtroom.
This remarkable turnaround — one that rejected the premises upon which Gitmo came into being — resulted in the prosecutors commencing plea negotiations.
The Bush-inspired premises of Gitmo were that since it is located in Cuba, federal laws don’t apply, the Constitution doesn’t apply and federal judges can’t interfere. In five landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected all these premises, and the new team of prosecutors and the new judge recognized as much.
The prosecutors basically said that they cannot ethically defend torture, they will not offer evidence derived from it in the case and the case is difficult to prove without evidence derived from torture.
This is a remarkable lesson to be learned. Instead of cutting holes in the Constitution, follow it. Instead of using torture, use acceptable investigative techniques. Instead of crafting a Devil’s Island, use the systems in place that have basically worked for hundreds of years.
None of this jurisprudential mess would have occurred if Bush had allowed the criminal justice structure to proceed unimpeded. The use of torture, rotating judges and prosecutors, and incarceration for a generation without charges or trial are all hallmarks of an authoritarian government.
If justice consists in convicting the guilty using established norms and fair procedures, Gitmo has been an unjust unhumanitarian disaster. But if justice consists in the government getting whatever he wants, then the Constitution is useless as a protector of freedom.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Connecticut Passes Law Mandating Water Fluoridation at Existing Levels in Move to Preempt Federal Changes
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025
Connecticut Gov. Ted Lamont on Tuesday signed legislation requiring public water systems to continue fluoridating drinking water at the levels currently recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In the press release, Lamont said current recommended levels of water fluoridation have been proven to be “safe and effective for many decades.”
The new law will ensure that “this public health standard continues in Connecticut regardless of whatever political decisions are made at the federal level,” Lamont said.
Previous state law mandated that water be fluoridated at levels recommended by HHS. Currently, the agency recommends 0.7 milligrams per liter, but it may reexamine that recommendation.
The law mandates that the amount of fluoride that must be added to the state’s water supply remains at the HHS-recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Pro-fluoridation lobbyists, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and state dental associations, celebrated the news. The ADA said it was pleased that Connecticut “has taken a proactive approach to protecting community water fluoridation.”
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which educates the public about the dangers of fluoridation, criticized the move. “Change is hard,” it posted on X. “Connecticut has stubbornly fossilized current fluoridation levels into law.”
In a press release, Lamont’s office cited outdated statistics claiming water fluoridation reduces cavities by 25%. It also quoted Connecticut senators, the state’s public health commissioner, and several dental organizations who affirmed the importance and safety of fluoridation. It didn’t cite any evidence to back those claims.
A growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, gained national attention when a federal judge in September 2024 ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a landmark lawsuit brought by the FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and must be regulated.
Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.
The decision to fluoridate water is usually made by local governments. However, fluoridation infrastructure typically has state funding, and a handful of states require fluoridation, usually for communities of a certain size.
Trump administration gives mixed signals on water fluoridation
Since the September federal court ruling, more than 60 communities, towns and states — including Florida, the third most populous state — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water systems.
Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since the 1940s. At the time of the lawsuit ruling, 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride.
Water fluoridation hasn’t always been a partisan issue. In the early 2010s, Democratic cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to end water fluoridation over concerns about the chemical’s toxic effects.
However, the issue became more politicized in November 2024, after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime fluoride critic, said the incoming Trump administration would advise local water systems to stop fluoridating water. Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary in February.
Since then, Democratic politicians and the mainstream press have vocally supported water fluoridation and attacked critics — including even CNN and Washington Post health commentator Dr. Leana Wen.
However, the Trump administration has given mixed signals on its approach to water fluoridation.
In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation. Also that month, Kennedy said he planned to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.
However, that recommendation has not happened.
Instead, last week, Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark fluoride lawsuit, announced on X that the EPA plans to appeal Chen’s decision ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation.
The agency is expected to file its appeal later this week.
In 2015, President Barack Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.
The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues, with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic. Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.
Related articles in The Defender
- Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling
- Breaking: New Cochrane Review Finds Water Fluoridation Has Minimal Effect on Dental Health
- Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules
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.
Deal or sanctions: West threaten Iran ahead of August deadline
Al Mayadeen | July 16, 2025
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, has agreed to set an end-of-August deadline for reaching a new nuclear agreement with Iran.
The decision, discussed during a joint call on Monday, could trigger a full reimposition of United Nations sanctions if no deal is reached, Axios reported, citing three sources familiar with the matter.
If Iran fails to meet the so-called “deadline,” the European trio plans to activate the “snapback” mechanism, an automatic reinstatement of all UN Security Council sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement. The mechanism is intended to respond to ‘Iranian noncompliance’ and is set to expire in October.
The move is time-sensitive. The snapback process takes 30 days to complete, and European diplomats are keen to initiate it before Russia assumes the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council this October. Western officials see the snapback as both a diplomatic pressure tool and a contingency plan if ongoing negotiations collapse, as per the report.
Iran, however, maintains there is no legal basis for the snapback and has warned that triggering it could prompt Tehran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated on Tuesday his administration’s continued commitment to a peaceful resolution and diplomatic engagement. In a post published Monday night on X, Pezeshkian stated: “To open new horizons, we must take a critical look at the past. What will lead us toward a better future is rebuilding hope, being ready to learn and change, and forging a new path through consensus, empathy, and rational thinking.”
Italy won’t buy US arms for Ukraine – media
RT | July 16, 2025
Italy’s budget doesn’t allow it to participate in US President Donald Trump’s plan to supply American arms to Ukraine, the Italian newspaper La Stampa reports, citing anonymous sources.
On Monday, Trump authorized new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, given that European NATO members provide funding, calling it a “very big deal.”
La Stampa said in an article on Wednesday that the strategy of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has already agreed to purchase several Patriot surface-to-air missile systems for Ukraine, “will not be pursued by Italy.”
According to the paper’s sources, Rome will be opting out of the scheme “not only because our weapon systems already handed over to Kiev have other technological configurations, but above all because – unlike Germany – the budget that Italy can allocate to such an operation is practically non-existent.”
The only arms purchase from the US currently planned by Italy is the delivery of a batch of F35 fighter jets scheduled for the 2030s, the sources added.
Politico reported on Tuesday, citing two French officials, that Paris would not be purchasing US weapons for Kiev as France is looking to invest in its own defense industry to meet European security needs.
The same day, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala told Publico outlet that Prague is also currently “not considering” joining the initiative. The country “is focusing on other… ways to help Ukraine,” he explained.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas earlier welcomed Trump’s pledge to send more weapons to Ukraine, but urged Washington to “share the burden” in terms of financing the deliveries. Washington, meanwhile, has threatened to impose secondary US tariffs of up to 100% on Russia’s trading partners unless progress toward a peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev is made within 50 days.
Trump’s New Aid to Ukraine Amounts to ‘Very Little’ Militarily, US Stocks Drawn Down – Expert
Sputnik – 16.07.2025
US President Donald Trump’s latest announcement regarding new military aid to Ukraine is expected to have limited military impact due to constrained US stockpiles, Jennifer Kavanagh, a US military expert who advocates the “America First” foreign policy Trump campaigned for, told Sputnik.
Trump, alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, announced a plan on Monday to provide Ukraine with additional military aid, including Patriot air defense missiles. This initiative involves European allies purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment, including Patriots, for transfer to Kiev. Trump stressed that the US would manufacture these weapons, with European nations covering 100% of the cost, aligning with his “America First” policy by avoiding direct US taxpayer funding.
“Although the details are still a bit unclear, it seems like Europe will buy weapons from the United States to send to Ukraine. These weapons will be a mix of materiel from US stocks and from new production. But the benefits for Ukraine and effects on the battlefield will be limited. What can be drawn from US stockpiles will be constrained in quantity because US weapons reserves have been drawn down already. New production, on the other hand, won’t arrive for some time — possibly years,” Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at US think tank Defense Priorities, told Sputnik.
She further elaborated on specific limitations, noting, “Overall, global stockpiles of Patriot interceptors are low. Only about 600 are produced per year. It is hard to say how many more the United States will be willing to provide Ukraine, but the number will be rather small in the near term.”
The expert noted Trump avoided further escalation by not sending offensive systems to Ukraine, observing, “so far the focus appears to be on defensive systems only.”
She added that the new announcement is largely “political theater” for Trump to calm nerves regarding the air defense pressure Ukraine is facing.
“Yes, much of this is political theater. The announcement amounts to very little militarily, in my estimation,” the pundit said.
The United States had committed more than $66.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration, including approximately $65.9 billion since the conflict began on February 24, 2022, according to the latest fact sheet from the US Department of Defense.
The Pentagon wants to build millions of drones without Chinese parts. It’s off to a bad start.
Inside China Business | July 15, 2025
Chinese companies produce over 90% of the commercial drones in use today. China also enjoys near-monopolies on the production of components, and deep supply chains. The White House and Pentagon have announced multi-billion dollar initiatives to create a drone manufacturing industry in the United States, particularly for warfighters. At the same time, Chinese officials have banned the exports of key drone materials and components to any company with a dual-use intent. Only a handful of American companies are being considered for the Pentagon effort, and testing is underway. However, major problems are already evident. Closing scene, Phoenix (Fenghuang) Ancient Town, Hunan
Resources and links:
YouTube, Pete Hegseth Unleashes PLAN to Modernize US Military’s War Fighting Effort 
• Pete Hegseth Unleashes PLAN to Modernize U…
The Best Drone Manufacturing Companies in 2022 https://droneii.com/best-drone-manufa…
UNLEASHING AMERICAN DRONE DOMINANCE https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti…
Drones Are Key to Winning Wars Now. The U.S. Makes Hardly Any. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/bu…
Silicon Valley’s Military Drone Companies Have A Serious ‘Made In China’ Problem https://www.defensemirror.com/news/39…
Forbes, Silicon Valley’s Military Drone Companies Have A Serious ‘Made In China’ Problem https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjea…
X, Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance https://x.com/SecDef/status/194374887…
DJI market share: here’s exactly how rapidly it has grown in just a few years https://www.thedronegirl.com/2018/09/…
Why America fell behind in drones, and how to catch up again https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-ame…
NAVIGATING THE SKIES OF REGULATION AND INNOVATION: THE CASE OF CIVIL DRONES https://competitionlab.gwu.edu/sites/…
Tucker Carlson at Turning Point USA: Epstein Was a Mossad Agent and IDF Soldiers Should Lose U.S. Citizenship
By Kevin MacDonald | The Occidental Observer | July 15, 2025
Things are looking up for being able to be honest about Jewish issues in mainstream forums. I couldn’t be happier that this is coming out from a mainstream conservative at a major mainstream conservative conference. It’s been a long time coming, and we are still not there. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Carlson is much hated by the ADL which oddly has not commented on this latest faux pas. But they have lots to say about Turker’s endorsement of the great replacement “conspiracy theory.”
Carlson claimed that Epstein had “connections to a foreign government”:
“It’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.” “Now no one’s allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that’s naughty.”
Lots of Jewish angst about this — and about Carlson’s statement that Jews who served in the IDF should lose their U.S. citizenship. Common sense, but since when has common sense been relevant to anything related to Jewish power. Any accusation of dual loyalty is considered anti-Semitism according to the official definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so I guess Carlson is now officially an anti-Semite, along with Charlie Kirk and a whole lot of people who attended the conference.
From the Forward:
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a leader in the Republican Party’s isolationist wing, said that Americans who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces should have their U.S. citizenship revoked over concerns of dual loyalty. At the same time, he also criticized the Trump administration for trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who engaged in anti-Israel activity on campus.are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF — they should lose their citizenship,” Carlson said in a 45-minute speech on Saturday at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida. “You can’t fight for another country and remain an American, period.”
Carlson, who has promoted antisemitic tropes [simply for saying Zelenskyy is a dictator who has suppressed Christianity] and has been associated with white nationalists [i.e., Darryl Cooper!!], explained that his position is an “obvious recognition of the truth” and applies to all countries. He mocked his critics — “they just write you off as some sort of internet freak, hater, Nazi” — and said it is “fair to demand that the people running my country love it every bit as much as I do.”
The founder of the organization Carlson spoke to is Charlie Kirk, a conservative podcaster who has accused Jews of financing “anti-white causes.” Several Trump cabinet members and Republican officials attended and spoke at the three-day conference.
And of course, Jews in high places deny Epstein had any connections to Mossad.
From the JTA comment on Naftali Bennet’s tweet:
Carlson has long faced allegations of antisemitism, including over his promotion of white supremacist ideas while on Fox News and his hosting of a Holocaust denier on his X stream last year.
More recently, he has been at the vanguard of a different divide within the MAGA movement over foreign policy, centering on Israel. Carlson and others heavily criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military offensive against Iran’s nuclear program, with Carlson accusing Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s “act of war.”
Carlson sends out a daily email to subscribers. This is from the July 14th email and basically summarizes his points at his talk. Notice he highlights Jewish activist Ben Shapiro as wanting to move on.
It seems likely that Jeffrey Epstein worked on behalf of an intelligence service. Probably not an American one.
So which country was it? The fact that so few reporters have bothered to dig into that question could prove to be this century’s most egregious example of journalistic malpractice. How did the notorious pedophile go from being a high school math teacher with no college degree to having a private island and one of the most luxurious residences in Manhattan? Doesn’t that seem weird? What was the source of his money? Why has nobody ever really looked into it?
To anyone paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government. To the Israeli government. That is true even though saying it out loud is forbidden in mainstream political discourse, but there’s nothing wrong with having the gall to do just that. It doesn’t matter what screeching shills like Mark Levin say. Telling the truth is not hateful, nor is it anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel.
Criticizing the behavior of a government agency, any government agency, does not make you a bigot. It makes you a free person. You are allowed to hold them to account because you’re not a slave; you are a citizen. That means you have the right to expect your government to act in your interest and to demand that foreign governments that suck up your tax dollars do the same. Israel using America’s most famous serial sex criminal as an intelligence asset would not fit that description.
So did it happen? A few people have asked the Israeli government that question, but they’ve received no real answers. That is unacceptable. As long as America keeps cutting generous checks to that foreign power, it should have to report to us. If it refuses, no more payments. The rules are simple.
In the meantime, we can’t help but notice a strange new talking point emerging on the Right.
“The Epstein story doesn’t even matter!” the Ben Shapiros of the world now claim. “So shut up about it already!”
That is obvious nonsense. The truth behind Epstein, his death, his connections, and how he got so rich matters a lot. The pedophile wasn’t killed during a walk down the street or even in his own home. He died in a high-security prison in the heart of America’s largest city. It was supposed to be among the most secure places in the world. That means whatever force is responsible for Epstein’s demise orchestrated the killing in among the most difficult conditions possible, and they did it while hardly breaking a sweat. Whoever pulled that off really runs our country. If they could do it to him, they could definitely do it to you, too.
Why would the Shapiro caucus not want to get to the bottom of that? You know the answer. It’s because they have something to hide
The refrain on the right is that Epstein matters because he is a window into who rules the U.S. And one would be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the cover-up is to hide the involvement of Mossad in an elaborate blackmail scheme. We also deserve to know what the deep state is hiding about the JFK assassination—another phenomenally important event in which there is good reason to think that Israel and the CIA were involved, and another incident where Trump said he would be completely transparent.
Featured Video
Death Spikes & Rising Cancer In Our Youth Explained
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Politicians lie
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- Ukrainian Soldiers, Potential Mercenaries: Have Gun, Will Travel!
- Burnham’s UN debut… A masterclass in British disinformation
- Iran flights continue despite US aviation sanctions
- Global Tipping Points Lead the World Into a State of Entropy
- The day-after at the White House: USA and Xi Jinping
- The Geopolitical Balance in the Red Sea: The UAE Being Displaced by New Players
- If Americans Knew
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- In UN Speech, Iran’s President Displays Pictures of Children Killed by US, Brings Attention to Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
