Outgoing US President Joe Biden used his last moments in office to roll out a blanket pardon for members of his family, effectively shielding them from potential repercussions they could face under Donald Trump.
Biden claimed on Monday that his family has long been targeted in a concerted effort to harm him politically.
“My family has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me – the worst kind of partisan politics. Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end,” Biden said in a statement.
The pardon concerns “any nonviolent offences against the United States” five of Biden’s family members might have committed starting from January 1, 2014 to the end of his term as president.
“I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, [his wife] Sara Jones Biden, [first sister] Valerie Biden Owens, [her husband] John T. Owens, and [first brother] Francis W. Biden,” the outgoing president said, adding that the “pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing.”
The pardon effectively buries the years-long James Biden influence peddling affair, being probed by Congressional Republicans and journalists. While he did not face any criminal charges, Biden’s brother James, a former nightclub owner, broker and political consultant, has been accused by Republicans of lying to Congress, as well as acting as an unregistered foreign agent.
James and the president’s son, Hunter, were subpoenaed over the alleged involvement of President Biden in their business dealings in the US and abroad, namely in China and Ukraine. Hunter Biden was pardoned by his father late last year, months after his conviction on gun and tax charges and as he faced sentencing in a separate case.
The controversial pardon came despite Joe Biden’s repeated promises not to intervene in his son’s criminal cases.
Since entering the electoral campaign, Donald Trump has criticised the military and financial aid provided to Kiev. As Trump takes office on January 20 and has the right to appoint officials at the highest level of justice, the new American leader could use corruption scandals to pull support from Ukraine and open investigations into the Biden administration.
Even before assuming the presidency of the United States, Trump already boasted a major achievement: a ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian militant movement Hamas. During the election campaign, the then-candidate for a second term stressed that he would continue to support Israel. However, officials and diplomats involved in brokering the ceasefire highlight the pivotal role Trump played in putting pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop his military incursion into Gaza.
On January 11, Trump’s envoy for Middle East affairs, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Israel. Four days later, the billionaire announced that the parties had reached an agreement. If Trump so quickly achieved a truce in one of the most horrific conflicts of today, without even making it a campaign promise, then there are good prospects to end the Ukrainian conflict, one of the main issues of his election campaign.
The new Oval Office occupant has previously expressed his desire to meet personally with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss this and other issues of global importance. The Kremlin, however, stressed that it believes the conflict is too complex for an easy solution. Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, said the same, estimating a period of 100 days for the creation of a peace plan.
Military and financial aid could be one strategy Trump uses to pressure Ukrainian leaders into entering into peace negotiations with Moscow. This stems from a very clear issue – Ukraine’s dependence on Western support to continue the war. Without this support, Kiev’s capabilities to sustain the war effort would be substantially reduced.
Permanent aid is the main factor in the continuation of the conflict and has delayed possible peace negotiations. In particular, it is because of the desire of the US and the Western bloc to inflict this strategic defeat on Russia at any cost.
It is recalled that Russian and Ukrainian delegates met in Istanbul to reach a diplomatic solution to the conflict, and they even drafted a peace agreement. However, Kiev was under pressure from its Western sponsors to abandon the negotiations. In October 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky banned any peace negotiations with Russia by decree, thus preventing diplomatic approaches to ending the conflict.
For this reason, reducing aid to Ukraine will help resolve the conflict.
Trump has shown his dissatisfaction with the high costs of supporting Ukraine, arguing that the US should not bear the brunt of this burden. Endless taxpayer money flowing into Ukraine’s treasury is extremely unpopular, evidenced by the strengthening of international parties with inspiration from Trump, whose campaign slogan is the end of this aid. The most notable case now is that of Germany.
Nonetheless, Kiev’s reputation for embezzlement and corruption only worsened when Zelensky admitted in an interview with Russian-American computer scientist Lex Fridman’s podcast that half of the announced $177 billion never reached Ukrainian coffers.
“If we had $177 billion and if we get the half, where is the second half? If you find the second half, you will find corruption,” he said.
This statement is worrying since instead of exclusively meeting the country’s needs, international resources appear to be generating profits for private individuals or foreign companies. This scenario reinforces the debates about the real interests behind international aid.
Late last year, award-winning Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko reported on her social media accounts that as Ukrainians suffer from the severe economic crisis, 13 Rolls-Royce luxury cars, each worth $650,000, were purchased by members of parliament and government officials in 2024.
The conflict is extremely lucrative, not only for the companies of the US military-industrial complex in Ukraine and their executives but also for the Pentagon budget. It is a “black box” that cannot explain where its resources have been allocated. For this reason, it cannot be discounted that there is also corruption on the American side.
Suspicions of improper relations between members of the Democratic Party and Ukrainian officials increased after former US President Joe Biden granted a presidential pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, for all crimes committed since 2014 when he began working with Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. In this regard, Trump can use these corruption scandals to distance the US from the conflict and to associate these cases with the Democratic Party.
Trump reclaiming his place in the White House also marks the arrival of his nominees to the highest level of justice in the US, such as the new head of the FBI, Kash Patel, and the new attorney general, Pam Bondi. With so many tools in his favour, there is a real possibility that Trump will use the judicial system to investigate any Democrat’s corruption relating to the Ukrainian conflict.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The majority of Americans believe the US government is spending too much on aid for Ukraine, a recent New York Times/Ipsos opinion poll suggests.
According to the findings, 51% of respondents say the country is “spending too much” on Kiev, while 28% believe the current amount is appropriate. Only 17% say the country should boost spending on Ukraine.
Similarly, 53% of those surveyed say US aid to Israel is excessive, with 30% considering it adequate. The survey, conducted from January 2 to 10, involved 2,128 people nationwide.
Public sentiment reflected in the survey suggests that most Americans want Washington to prioritize domestic issues over foreign aid. Among the respondents, 60% say the US “should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home,” while only 38% believe the country should continue to be active in global affairs. The poll also indicates that 60% believe the US government is “almost always wasteful and inefficient,” while 72% say it is “working to benefit itself” and its own agenda, not the people.
This comes after the government’s recent decision to provide Ukraine with an additional $500 million military aid package, announced on January 8. Congress has appropriated a total of over $175 billion on assistance for Kiev since the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022, of which $65.9 billion has been direct military assistance, according to the latest data from the Pentagon.
US spending on Ukraine has recently drawn criticism from Marco Rubio, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state in the upcoming administration. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as part of his confirmation last week, he said the US should no longer give Kiev indefinite support and criticized the outgoing administration of President Joe Biden for failing to clearly delineate the “end goal” of the funds it has been pouring into the conflict.
“What exactly were we funding? What exactly were we putting money towards?” he asked, saying the current approach of “however much it takes for however long it takes” is not realistic.
Moscow has warned that Western aid to Ukraine only serves to prolong the conflict without changing the outcome. It has said it is willing to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, but maintained that any settlement must begin with Kiev ceasing military operations and acknowledging the reality that it will not regain control of former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia. Moscow has also insisted upon Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification.
Outgoing US State Secretary Antony Blinken urged Ukraine to continue its military efforts against Russia rather than pursue peace negotiations in 2022, the New York Times reported on Saturday.
In late 2022, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley advised Kiev to capitalize on its battlefield successes by seeking peace talks with Moscow. However, Blinken insisted that Ukraine should press on with its military campaign, the newspaper wrote.
“Less a peacemaker than a war strategist,” the US diplomat frequently argued against more “risk-averse Pentagon officials,” lobbying for advanced American weaponry to be sent to Ukraine, NYT wrote.
Washington has spent “approximately $100 billion” on Ukraine since the conflict escalated in February 2022, while allies and partners have contributed an additional $150 billion, Blinken said during a January appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The outgoing Biden administration has expedited arms deliveries to Kiev ahead of the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump, who has indicated that he might reduce military aid to Ukraine in favor of addressing domestic priorities.
The Biden administration had been covertly arming Ukraine months before the conflict intensified, Blinken admitted in a January interview with the NYT. “Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defend themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use,” he said.
Russia and Ukraine initially engaged in peace negotiations in early 2022 in Istanbul. Both sides provisionally agreed to a truce under which Kiev would renounce its NATO membership ambitions, adopt neutrality, and limit its military size in exchange for international security guarantees. However, Ukraine later withdrew from the talks at the urging of then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, according to David Arakhamia, a Zelensky-allied MP and chief negotiator for Kiev.
Last month, Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch similarly accused the US and UK of derailing peace talks between Kiev and Moscow. Speaking to the French-language media outlet Anti-Thèse, Ruch claimed that Johnson acted “on duty for the Americans.”
Moscow has reiterated its willingness to resume peace negotiations, provided they are based on the Istanbul draft agreements and reflect the “new territorial realities,” including the accession of four former Ukrainian regions to Russia and recent battlefield developments.
I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Ambassador Chas Freeman, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Besides being a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman’s career included opening China with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon in the 1970s and developing the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe.
We discussed the messy world that the Biden Administration is handing over to Trump. There is seemingly a genuine desire to end the proxy war in Ukraine, and Trump may also achieve a ceasefire in Palestine. However, NATO’s escalations in Ukraine to sabotage possible negotiations and the reckless support for HTS in Syria have reduced the possibilities available to Trump. Will the Ukraine War be resolved by a Russian victory or a political settlement?
Ultra-hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham said incoming President Donald Trump should take out Iran’s nuclear facilities once he returns to power. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, but the South Carolina Republican said Trump should take advantage of Iran’s weakened position to strike the Islamic Republic.
Graham was interviewed Sunday by Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.” “The next topic I will be engaging in with President Trump, is to take this moment in time to decimate the Iran nuclear program,” he said. “I don’t think diplomacy works. [Iran’s] proxies [are] incredibly weakened. Israel can go anywhere they wanna go.”
Graham claimed Iran had been weakened in the Middle East, making it an opportune time to attack Tehran. That view is also shared by Trump’s envoy to the Ukraine conflict. Last week, retired General Keith Kellog said there was an opportunity “to change Iran for the better” but said it wouldn’t last for long. Adding, “We must exploit the weakness we now see. The hope is there, so must too be the action.”
While Tehran has limited its nuclear program to civilian purposes, for decades, politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv have warned that Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons. The US intelligence community recently restated that the Islamic Republic is not attempting to weaponize its nuclear program.
In 2015, then-President Barack Obama negotiated a deal with Iran that placed unprecedented safeguards and inspections on Tehran’s nuclear program. Graham was a stalwart opponent of the Iran Nuclear Deal, and Trump broke the deal during his first term when Tehran was in compliance.
Trump brands himself a great negotiator and said on the campaign trail that he would “have to make a deal” with Iran if reelected. Graham told Brennan that it was impossible to engage diplomatically with Iran.
“This is a … religious Nazi regime,” he said. “They want to destroy the Jewish state. They wanna purify Islam and drive us out of the Mideast. It’d be like negotiating with Hitler. I am hoping there will be an effort by Israel to decimate the Iran nuclear program supported by the United States, and if we don’t do that, it’ll be a historical mistake.”
Earlier this month, Axios reported that there was a “real possibility” of American strikes on Iran during Trump’s second term.
“I see Australia as the beachhead to counter China… That’s why AUKUS is so important,” said Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a roundtable meeting on Wednesday.
The term “beachhead,” according to the dictionary, refers to an area on a hostile shore occupied to secure further landing of troops and supplies. This is how the US views Australia: as a frontline base in the Asia-Pacific to maintain US’ strategic and military presence in the region and to serve the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” aimed at countering China’s rise.
With the thawing of China-Australia relations, the US is growing anxious. Even the Australian media has noticed this: “McCaul’s remarks add to impressions that with Republicans controlling Washington, Australia may be asked to do more to challenge China in the Asia-Pacific, despite the stabilization of relations achieved by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.”
“This once again highlights how Australia is being instrumentalized and weaponized by the US, at the sacrifice of Australia’s political, economic and security interests, disregarding its sovereignty to serve US national interests,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center of East China Normal University, told the Global Times.
Recently, Australia has been promoting the stabilization, improvement and enhancement of its relationship with China. In June last year, Albanese published an opinion piece, saying, “Working productively with China will benefit everyone in the region.” Three months later, before the visit of Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers to China, he made it clear that the discussions would focus on “stabilizing the economic relationship with China.”
The Asia-Pacific region has maintained relative peace and stability. Clearly, this is a situation the US doesn’t want to see, so it once again uses AUKUS to remind Australia: Your role is simply to serve as America’s “beachhead.”
But from its inception, AUKUS has been a burden and a liability for Australia. On September 15, 2021, the US, the UK and Australia announced the creation of AUKUS. Australia’s total investment in the plan is a staggering 368 billion AUD (about $242 billion), with an additional 555 million EUR (about $585 million) to be paid to France as compensation for the cancellation of a previous submarine deal.
What’s worse, due to the US’ limited submarine production capacity and inadequate investment in UK and Australian shipyards, the AUKUS agreement is currently facing several challenges. More and more Australians believe that the US will ultimately fail to deliver the Virginia-class nuclear submarines. A possible alternative is that the US may station its nuclear submarines in Australian ports. Given that a US official has previously declined to explicitly guarantee that Australia will have full control of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, Australia may ultimately face the loss of sovereignty over its submarine capabilities.
More importantly, Chen said the nuclear submarine fleet under the AUKUS framework is not tailored to Australia’s defense needs but serves the US’ military adventure plans against China. McCaul’s remarks about the US’ vision for the Asia-Pacific further support this point. “A third world war – if it occurred – would most likely break out in the Indo Pacific region… That’s why Australia, in my view, is the power in the Pacific that we need to fortify,” he said.
Albanese concluded his June article with the words, “Building a more prosperous and secure future for all who call the Indo-Pacific home.” This contrasts sharply with McCaul’s statement. For Australia, this is a strategic issue that requires deep thought and reflection: To what extent should Australia achieve its strategic autonomy and truly serve its own interests? Is the vision of the Asia-Pacific in the US blueprint the future Australia wants?
The tide may have finally turned with mainstream news on fluoride safety after a recently published study on the significant association between fluoride exposure and lower IQs in children reaffirms previous findings.
Drug companies report their biggest concern with the incoming Trump administration is the fear that the government will try to ban direct-to-consumer drug ads, according to a new report from The Lever that examines the industry practice.
Companies said such a ban would “almost certainly” lead to a drop in drug sales, according to a recent report by industry research firm Intron Health, which claims the return on investment for drug ads is as high as 100%-500%, depending on the drug.
The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers.
When President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), was running as a presidential candidate, he promised to ban the ads through an executive order on his first day in office.
When he tapped Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense, to lead HHS, Trump criticized drugmakers and Big Food companies, saying they “have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation.”
The Lever predicted the chances the administration can successfully ban these ads are “slim,” but said Big Pharma’s reaction shows how dependent the industry — and the media conglomerates it supports — has become on advertising drugs to consumers.
Critics say the ads “misinform patients and underemphasize treatment risks,” in part because they don’t provide all the information a patient needs to make an informed decision.
The ads also lead to unnecessary drug prescriptions, which The Lever said raises healthcare costs for consumers and taxpayers.
Most heavily advertised drugs don’t provide meaningful therapeutic benefit
Direct-to-consumer marketing in the U.S. began in 1981, with limited success at first because the FDA required drugmakers to list all possible side effects in the ads, according to The Lever’s short history of the practice.
Under the Clinton administration in 1997, the FDA relaxed its policies, allowing drugmakers to list only “major risks” in their ads, paving the way for a new and massive wave of television advertising for prescription drugs.
Spending on ads shot up 330% between 1996 and 2005, reaching $4.2 billion by 2004, and continued to grow after that.
According to a 2021 report by the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office, 60% of the $560 billion that Medicare and its beneficiaries spent on drugs went to the advertised drugs.
The Lever claimed there are benefits to such advertising. Citing a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, it suggested that advertising can “somewhat” educate consumers and extend drug care to “undertreated patients.”
However, the report said advertising also increases the number of patients that request an advertised medication and the likelihood their prescriber will give it to them, whether they need it or not.
The ads also lead to greater use of higher-cost drugs over generics, even when those drugs offer no greater benefit.
The Lever cites a 2023 study in JAMA Network Open that assessed the “therapeutic value” — whether a drug led to improved clinical outcomes — of the top 73 most heavily advertised drugs. The study found that only 1 in 4 advertised drugs had a high therapeutic value.
“Many consumers might assume that the drugs they see all the time on TV are for cutting-edge therapies that are groundbreaking advances over the other treatment options on the market …
“Our study suggests that assumption is usually wrong: Heavily advertised drugs often do not necessarily provide meaningful therapeutic benefits as opposed to other therapeutic options.”
Obstacles to ending direct-to-consumer ads
The Lever said it is “relatively unlikely” Kennedy will be able to ban the ads, partly because efforts to merely restrict drug advertising have been defeated in courts on First Amendment grounds.
During Trump’s first administration, a federal judge blocked an HHS rule requiring drugmakers to include prices in their TV commercials, saying it exceeded the agency’s statutory authority.
“Kennedy could continue to push for cost transparency or require FDA review of all drug ads,” The Lever noted, “but any such reform attempts would likely be slow-going and challenged by the industry.”
TV and radio broadcasters are also expected to fight a drug ad ban because Big Pharma is one of the top advertising spenders. Last year, the National Association of Broadcaster industry lobbying group spent $8.8 million lobbying on issues including direct-to-consumer advertising, according to lobbying records.
Prescription drugs accounted for 30.7% of ad minutes across evening news programs on ABC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC last year through Dec. 15, according to the WSJ.
The Lever proposed less drastic measures to “mitigate” some of the negative impacts of this advertising rather than banning it altogether.
For example, the FDA could require pharmaceutical companies to include disclaimers about the effectiveness of the drugs versus other drugs already on the market. Or drug companies could offer a “Drug Facts Box” label, that would provide one-page summaries of the risks and benefits of new drugs.
The agency could also extend its requirement, instituted in 2023, that TV and radio drug ads use “consumer-friendly” and “understandable” language to disclose potential side effects, applying it to over-the-counter medicines, dietary supplements or other products, which also account for hundreds of millions of advertising dollars.
“Even if all of those drug ads filling the TV and computer screens aren’t likely to go away soon, advocates hold out hope that regulators could at least require them to be more informative and comprehensible,” The Lever reported.
The United States has begun the forward deployment of a new generation of its B61 nuclear gravity bomb at bases in Europe, a senior administrator has announced. What signal does the deployment send to Moscow? What impact will it have on strategic security in Europe? Sputnik turned to a senior former Pentagon insider for answers.
“The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed, and we have increased NATO’s visibility to our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements,” US National Nuclear Security Administration chief Jill Hruby revealed in a talk at the Hudson Institute this week.
“Our strategic partnership with the UK is very strong, as is their commitment to their nuclear deterrent. And we have advanced our thinking together about critical supply chain resilience. NATO is strong,” Hruby added, hinting at the prospects for ‘enhanced’ nuclear cooperation.
Reports have been swirling in recent years about US plans to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in the UK at the RAF base at Lakenheath, although no official announcements have been made to date.
The B61-12, also known as the B61 Mod 12, is the latest upgrade to the US variable yield nuclear gravity bomb design first rolled out in the late 1960s. The Mod 12 is set to replace the older Mod 3, 4 and 7 variants of the weapon, and features a 0.3-50 kt yield.
Testing of the B61-12 was completed in 2020, with production starting in late 2021, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists expecting 400-500 of the weapons to be produced, in part for deployments abroad.
Older variants of the munition are currently deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye’s Incerlick Air Base. NATO has approved the weapons to be used in battle by select alliance members as part of the bloc’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements.
The announcement of the bombs’ deployment in Europe is meant to “signal to Moscow that NATO and particularly the UK… are prepared for any ‘attack’ on any NATO country,” says ex-DoD analyst Michael Maloof.
What it really signals is just how much of a US protectorate Western European countries and the UK have allowed themselves to become, Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst with the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, said.
“When I used to live there on a military base, we used to joke how the UK was nothing but a floating aircraft carrier because of all the US bases on the RAF facilities there,” the observer, who grew up in southern England during the Cold War, recalled.
The nukes’ deployment once again “underscores how NATO has evolved not into a defensive alliance, but an offensive alliance,” with the bases where the bombs are stored obvious targets for Russia in the event of a deadly escalation, Maloof said.
Can Trump Fix a Broken Alliance?
Maloof hopes that under Trump 2.0, “a total reevaluation of the deployment of US bases throughout NATO” will take place, especially in Germany but possibly also the UK.
NATO’s continued existence, the alliance’s “Cold War 2.0” against Russia and the bloc’s eastward expansion have been a disaster for European security, the observer said.
“I think it’s the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it. This perennial cycle has just got to cease. And given how we don’t even have a defense against hypersonics… it really shows that we’re reaching a very dangerous pinnacle here of escalation.”
The nuke deployment, the termination of the INF Treaty during Trump’s first term and other factors have “made Europe an all the more dangerous place to be,” Maloof emphasized, with reaction time in case of a nuclear escalation being “virtually nil.”
“I think that this posturing that we continually see to ‘show deterrence’ is actually making the West even more vulnerable to attack because it is an agitating factor,” the observer added.
This week’s “breakthrough” in ceasefire negotiations to end the genocidal campaign against Gaza came, according to regional sources, after a single intervention by US president-elect Trump’s designated envoy Steve Witkoff in which he ordered Netanyahu’s government to capitulate. While we might be skeptical of Trump’s habit of claiming credit for any progress, it was corroborated by the far-right members of the Netanyahu government erupting into the kind of tantrum for which they are now world-famous, framing the deal as a disaster imposed on “Israel” by the incoming administration.
While a welcome relief, the imposition of the ceasefire on “Israel” by Trump also brings into stark focus the pointlessness of the last year and a half of slaughter as well as the regionalization of the war to the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen.
In the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Biden, while parroting “Israel’s” atrocity propaganda about beheaded infants in ovens, gave Netanyahu a carte blanche to declare total war on the people of Gaza. As the unique scale of the atrocities in the Strip became clear, Biden proceeded, through his spineless UN ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, to provide diplomatic cover for the genocide at the Security Council. Breaking even with its European surrogates, the US vetoed every resolution that called for an end to the butchery, clearly straining to invent new objections to deflect global outrage at such cold-blooded cynicism.
The free rein given by the American government only emboldened the Israeli regime to widen the scope of the war. It achieved this to great effect through its airstrike on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus. In addition to violating every rule of modern (and ancient) diplomacy, the attack killed several high-ranking Iranian officials, guaranteeing that Tehran would retaliate directly, which it did with the largest volley of drones in military history (thus far) against “Israel”.
As was clear from the warning Tehran issued as the attack unfolded, it was deliberately calibrating its response to avert further escalation. By this point, the urgent need for a ceasefire was indisputable. It was, however, to presage the most shameful chapter of the US administration’s complicity.
Shortly afterward, in June, Biden lied that a ceasefire deal had finally been reached, that it was at the initiative of the Netanyahu government, and that the Israeli leadership had accepted it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken clownishly trumpeted this falsehood, along with the claim that the only impediment to the ceasefire was Hamas’ refusal of its terms. It was well known at the time to be a lie, but the breakthrough of the last week confirms it beyond all doubt.
The Biden Administration’s refusal from that point on to impose a ceasefire cleared the path for the Israeli regime to massively escalate the war by assassinating Hamas’ political leader Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital Tehran, which, along with its flagrant campaign of terrorism against Lebanon, culminating in the assassination of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, compelled Tehran to forcefully retaliate with a further massive drone and ballistic missile barrage against Israeli military targets.
Seizing the opportunity, Netanyahu used the response to his own provocations to launch a cynical war of choice against Lebanon in the vain belief that Israeli infiltration had “decapitated” Hezbollah. This most destructive war in Lebanon’s recent history displaced more than a million Lebanese and obliterated civilian infrastructure in the South, Beirut, and the Beqaa Valley, killing at least 4,000 civilians and wounding nearly 17,000. Despite this blitzkrieg, Israeli ground forces found themselves unable to advance as much as one kilometer along the entire stretch of the south Lebanese border. Along with a mounting casualty rate, “Israel” was forced to accept a ceasefire, albeit one that has given it cover to continue detonating villages on the border and launching drone and air strikes against Lebanese targets.
Throughout the entirety of this catastrophic year, US voters were shamelessly gaslit by the Democratic Party. First, they were fed the laughable falsehood that Biden was being repeatedly “deceived” by the Israeli leadership and that he personally detested the Israeli Prime Minister. Clearly, it was never to the extent that he would even consider withholding the deluge of armaments without which Tel Aviv could not prosecute the genocide or its spill-over in more than half a dozen other regional theatres. Secondarily, we were admonished, even by supposed supporters of Palestine, that to not vote for Vice President Kamala Harris would be to see the genocide intensify in a second Trump presidency.
While there is more than ample cause for skepticism, the ease with which the US president-elect has forced the Israeli leadership to fall into line has torched the last fig leaf of justification that the Democrats were ever interested in doing anything but stalling for time so that Tel Aviv could ‘finish the job,’ even at the cost of losing the election to what they claimed is the “Hitler of our time.”
Even as the Palestinians may take comfort that the last year has thrown their cause to the forefront of the global agenda; it has nonetheless come at a still uncalculated cost in life and property. When the true toll is eventually calculated, as well as the fascists of Tel Aviv, every drop of blood will be on the heads of the now-former Biden administration that so willingly offered up an entire region for slaughter.
Beirut – During his visit with US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Lebanese President Michael Aoun reportedly received a US-Israeli document detailing plans for creating a civil war in Lebanon with covert false flag operations and possible Israeli invasion.
Although the source of the document is Israeli and created in partnership with Washington, no one knows who presented it to Aoun. The Lebanese TV station, Al-Jadeed, initially reported the document on Lebanese TV and a video on its website. Geopolitics Alert translated the report for this article. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
