Did the US military take down a civilian plane?
RT | August 5, 2026
The US military’s GPS jamming exercises have been directly implicated in a fatal plane crash for the first time, after an air ambulance flew into a mountain range in New Mexico while its guidance system was scrambled.
Details of the crash, which took place in May, were revealed in a recent preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The report explains how the jamming exercises interfered with multiple aircraft, pushing air traffic controllers to the breaking point as they attempted to reroute flights using traditional means of navigation. Amid the confusion, a medevac flight with four people on board strayed miles off course, crashing into mountains at full speed on a moonless night.
What happened to the plane?
Shortly after 11 PM on May 13, the crew of a Beechcraft King Air 90 air ambulance were given a straightforward mission: fly for roughly 20 minutes from Roswell to Sierra Blanca Regional Airport, pick up a patient, and transport them to Albuquerque for treatment. Two pilots and two nurses boarded the turboprop aircraft and took off, flying west.
Within minutes, controllers noticed that the plane was flying 1,000 feet above its assigned altitude. The plane’s captain informed controllers that he had lost GPS signal, and controllers responded by ordering him to correct his altitude, fly north, and await alternate directions to Sierra Blanca, where he would perform an instrument landing – using radio beacons to line up with the runway and descend at the correct angle.
Meanwhile, controllers got in touch with the military and requested that the jamming exercise be paused.
What was the military doing?
Some 40 miles away, at the White Sands Missile Range, the US Air Force’s 746th Test Squadron was holding its annual NAVFEST drills. These exercises bring together electronic warfare (EW) units from multiple branches of the armed forces, engineers from the defense industry, and teams from other NATO states to practice GPS interference, navigation, and drone defense on a desert plain once used to test atomic bombs.
Prior to the crash, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned aircraft operators that GPS could be affected up to 400 miles from the exercises between May 12 and May 18.
A map showing GPS interference around White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico on the night of the crash © GPSJAM
How did the plane crash?
As the plane continued north, controllers informed the captain that they would send vectors – a series of compass headings – to align the plane for landing “in a couple minutes.” However, the controllers were busy redirecting four other aircraft that had lost their GPS, and the vectors never came.
At eight minutes past midnight, the pilots spotted the runway lights at Sierra Blanca, roughly 31 miles to their southwest. They decided to navigate visually to the airport, informed controllers, and turned towards their destination. Apparently, they never intended to approach from this direction, and didn’t notice the 10,000-foot Capitan Mountains between them and the runway.
Controllers informed the military that it could resume jamming, and the plane descended towards Sierra Blanca, its altimeter still reading 600 feet higher than the plane’s actual altitude. As the mountains rose out of the darkness and obscured the distant runway, the pilots attempted to pull up, but were unable to avert disaster.
The plane slammed into the mountainside, instantly killing everyone on board and igniting a forest fire that took almost a month to extinguish.
What has the US military said?
The US Army did not respond to questions from the Associated Press, and has not released a public statement on the crash in the almost two months since the NTSB’s report was published.
Much about the incident is still unknown. It is unclear whether the pilots were aware that the FAA had warned about potential GPS interference, whether their ground proximity warning system – which should have told them to climb to avoid the crash – was affected by the jamming, and why they were unaware of a large mountain range in the area.
The NTSB’s report is preliminary, and the board will not identify the precise cause of the crash until its investigation concludes next year.
Are more flights at risk?
The crash marked the first time that GPS jamming by the US military has been implicated in a fatal accident. However, civilian aircraft have been affected by jamming exercises before. In March of last year, airliners approaching Washington DC’s Reagan International Airport received warnings from their planes’ Traffic Collision Avoidance System, instructing them to immediately descend to avoid hitting non-existent traffic in their paths. It later emerged that electronic warfare testing by the US Secret Service caused the false alerts.
Such incidents will likely become more common, as the Pentagon increases its spending on, and testing of, EW equipment. Since at least 2020, the US has been aware that its military trails Russia and China in developing and integrating EW systems, and lawmakers have pushed the Pentagon to close the gap.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has demonstrated just how wide that gap is, even between the US and its own client regime in Kiev. In a conflict where every Ukrainian advance in drone technology is countered by Russian EW specialists within weeks, and vice versa, US weapons systems – including GPS-guided shells and missiles – were rendered “useless” by mid-2023, according to media reports.
Since then, the Pentagon has asked Congress to fund more electronic warfare experiments in the US, and last year, the Army published its first ever Comprehensive Electromagnetic Warfare Strategy, promising to embed EW systems into every unit of the branch by 2028.
The US has the world’s busiest airspace, with more than 44,000 flights handled by the FAA every day. It is inevitable that a growing number of these flights will be affected by electronic warfare in the future, and that the risk to civilians will increase as the Pentagon tries to catch up with its adversaries.
AIPAC spends $30m but fails to stop El-Sayed in Michigan
MEMO | August 5, 2026
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has suffered a major electoral defeat after Dr Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, crushing pro-Israel congresswoman Haley Stevens despite an unprecedented spending campaign on her behalf.
AIPAC’s super political action committee, the United Democracy Project, spent more than $30 million promoting Stevens and attacking El-Sayed, according to Federal Election Commission filings analysed by the New York Times. NBC News projected El-Sayed as the winner on Wednesday, dealing a major blow to the pro-Israel lobby’s efforts to determine the outcome of one of the most closely watched Democratic contests in the country.
El-Sayed campaigned against US military assistance to Israel and repeatedly highlighted AIPAC’s intervention in the race. Stevens, by contrast, received the backing of AIPAC and the Democratic Party establishment.
The result is seen as providing some of the clearest evidence yet that association with Israel and its powerful lobby groups is becoming a political liability among Democratic voters as opposition grows to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the unconditional support it receives from Washington.
A New York Times investigation published before the primary result was announced revealed the scale of AIPAC’s transformation from a traditional lobbying organisation into one of the largest spenders in US elections.
Spending by AIPAC-affiliated political action committees on campaign advertising and voter outreach has more than doubled in less than five years, rising from $29.3 million to $67.2 million. Much of the money has been directed towards Democratic primaries, where the lobby has sought to defeat candidates who criticise Israel or question US military assistance to the occupation state.
However, the investigation uncovered a striking feature of AIPAC’s campaign strategy: it rarely reveals its connection to Israel.
Between April 2022 and the end of July, AIPAC-funded groups produced 109 television and digital adverts. Only six mentioned Israel. Instead, the adverts focused on issues such as abortion rights, the economy and the cost of living, despite being financed specifically to elect politicians who support Israel.
AIPAC’s reluctance to mention Israel is seen as a reflection of a deeper political problem: open association with the Israeli government has become increasingly toxic following the mass killing, displacement and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
The lobby is effectively asking voters to support Israel’s preferred candidates without making Israel itself part of the public argument.
AIPAC has also channelled approximately $22 million into five smaller super PACs with innocuous names that make no reference to Israel. These include Elect Chicago Women, Affordable Chicago Now!, Voters for Responsive Government and Blue Wave Action.
The Michigan contest became the lobby’s largest gamble. United Democracy Project spent more than $10 million promoting Stevens and over $20 million attacking El-Sayed through advertising and voter outreach.
Nevertheless, El-Sayed prevailed.
El-Sayed’s victory is thought to be particularly significant because Michigan is home to one of the largest Arab-American populations in the US and became the centre of the “Uncommitted” movement, which challenged former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Signs of the political backlash were already visible in April when Stevens and another AIPAC-backed politician were booed during the Michigan Democratic Party Convention. El-Sayed and his former primary rival, Mallory McMorrow, had both pledged to reject AIPAC funding.
AIPAC has previously succeeded in removing several prominent critics of Israel, spending millions of dollars to defeat former Democratic representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. It has also targeted Republicans who questioned US military support for Israel.
However, the lobby has faced a growing number of defeats. Summer Lee survived repeated AIPAC-funded attempts to remove her, while candidates in Illinois and New Jersey successfully used their opponents’ links to the lobby against them.
Polls have also documented a rapid decline in support for Israel. A majority of Americans now oppose providing economic and military assistance to Israel, while Democratic voters have become increasingly critical of both Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the influence of pro-Israel lobbying organisations.
Abdul el-Sayed defeats AIPAC-backed rival in Michigan primary, defying millions in lobby spending
The Cradle | August 5, 2026
Abdul el-Sayed, a former public health official, has won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, defeating AIPAC-backed Representative Haley Stevens in a close race, NBC News reported on 5 August.
Sayed won despite being heavily outfunded, with outside groups pouring close to $65 million into the race to stop him.
More than $30 million of the television advertising behind Stevens came from a group affiliated with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
Taken together, Stevens and her allies outspent Sayed and the groups supporting him on advertising by a factor of nine to one, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.
Sayed pointed to the imbalance in his closing argument, saying during a debate, “If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can’t be elected on your own terms.”
He also went after Stevens’ support for aid to Israel, and stated outright that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, a position that carries particular weight in Michigan, home to large Muslim and Arab communities.
Sayed made Stevens’ backing from AIPAC and corporate political action committees a central charge against her, attacking both the funds she accepted directly and the advertising her big-spending allies bought on her behalf.
Stevens, a four-term congresswoman, ran with the backing of the Democratic establishment, positioning her campaign squarely within the party leadership alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer endorsed her on 24 July in a late move seen as an attempt to stifle Sayed’s rise. Outgoing Senator Gary Peters, whose seat is at stake, also endorsed her after deciding not to seek a third term.
Despite the cumulative hurdles, Sayed’s victory follows a run of defeats for AIPAC-funded candidates in Democratic primaries this cycle.
On 30 June, Democratic socialist Melat Kiros unseated Diana DeGette in Colorado’s 1st congressional district by nearly 10 percentage points, ending a 30-year congressional career built in part on well over $1.6 million from AIPAC.
A week earlier, in New York, Brad Lander defeated Dan Goldman after attacking his refusal to call the assault on Gaza a genocide or to back restrictions on arms sales to Israel, while Darializa Avila Chevalier unseated Adriano Espaillat in a campaign centered on his acceptance of AIPAC money.
A senior House Democrat called the Colorado result a wake-up call, with support for Israel turning from an asset into a liability. Strategist Jon Paul Lupo told POLITICO that candidates opposing the war on Gaza held a massive political advantage this cycle.
Pew Research Center polling released in April found 60 percent of US citizens now view Israel unfavorably, with very unfavorable sentiment nearly tripling since 2022, while a Gallup poll in February recorded more US citizens sympathizing with Palestinians, at 41 percent, than with Israelis, at 36 percent – the first such result in US history.
El-Sayed Wins Michigan Democratic Primary for Senate
Al-Manar – August 5, 2026
Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, has won the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate, overcoming more than $60m in campaign spending, mostly from pro-Israel groups, NBC has projected.
The result on Tuesday represents an enormous blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which led the way in the effort to defeat El-Sayed, backing his opponent, US Congresswoman Haley Stevens, with more than $30m.
El-Sayed will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November. The race is considered one of a handful of competitive Senate contests in the November midterms and could determine which party controls the chamber for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.
If El-Sayed – who is of Egyptian descent – wins in November, he would become the first Muslim senator in US history.
Tuesday’s result in Michigan – a swing state that voted for Trump in 2024 – will have major implications for the Democrats’ policies on conflicts in the Middle East.
El-Sayed recognizes Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as a genocide and argues that money spent on conflicts that benefit ‘Israel’ should be invested in local communities in the US to address healthcare, housing and infrastructure problems.
Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, a non-partisan advocacy group that does not endorse candidates, called El-Sayed’s victory a “big deal”.
She said voters “did not buy” the avalanche of ads that did not talk about policies and only launched negative attacks “about an Arab American Muslim man named Abdul”.
Did Israel have a hand in Morocco’s Ceuta stunt?
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 4, 2026
There are a great deal of conspiracy theories floating around since the extraordinary events in recent days in northern Morocco, where an estimated 50,000 of its citizens attempted to place themselves in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. In a country where the press are heavily controlled and free-spirited citizen journalism is assiduously discouraged, it’s hardly surprising there is speculation – given how in the dark the government operates most of the time. Yet few, if any Moroccans, believe the government narrative that the entire thing developed an energy of its own on social media platforms and that the state itself was taken by surprise. True, a lot of how quickly the information spread was due to social media platforms, but there are too many oddities which can’t be ignored that point the finger at the government – or whoever is running Morocco – for organising the huge mobilisation. Firstly, the number of trucks full to the brim of young men who drove all the way to the border and were directed by police and gendarmerie; secondly, the more recent scenes of hundreds of these young men at bus and train stations all over the country on their way home, where clearly their transportation has been paid for by someone; and of course, lastly but not least, the fact that Moroccan police on the Moroccan side of the border made no effort at all – not even a token effort – to stop people from going around the fence or into the water. In fact, many of those who made the journey have already told media that they were actually directed and encouraged to “go to Spain” by those same police officers.
Moroccans know only too well what is happening. They remember the few times before when thousands of African migrants also magically all turned up at the border with Ceuta and Melilla and also remarkably found on that particular day no Moroccan police officers and so scaled the fence. On at least two occasions in recent years, this stunt has been used by Rabat to indicate to Madrid how angry and displeased it is about Spain’s actions over Algeria, Western Sahara or other regional policies.
But those days were before 2022, when relations with Spain were far from ideal. These days, since Madrid backed Morocco’s sovereignty bid for Western Sahara, relations – until just the other day – were as best as they could get. Almost.
It’s important to remember how easily good relations with Spain could turn sour, and that in recent weeks Madrid’s rapprochement with Algeria and moves afoot in the Spanish parliament to give the indigenous people of Western Sahara Spanish passports could ruin everything that has been achieved overnight. Why would Rabat throw away a relationship so important to it, unless there is something else at play which analysts and journalists alike are missing? Is there another dimension to the Ceuta story which we are entirely missing?
According to the Iranians, Israel had a hand in what happened. Tehran believes that the Moroccans have been led down the garden path by primarily Israel and then Trump, and some recent events suggest there could be some truth in their assertion.
There is an obvious question here to be asked, which no Western journalists have so far identified. Trump and Netanyahu both have Spain in their crosshairs and desperately want to make the country a pariah state, cutting off U.S. aid and even having Madrid ousted as a NATO member. Of course, some of this is unrealistic and far-fetched, but it is rare that Trump and Bibi see eye to eye on the Iran war – when it comes to Spain and Morocco, there is clarity. It is clear that Israel and the U.S. are trying to stir trouble up, and the only real way to do that quickly and effectively, they see, is to destroy this relationship between Rabat and Madrid. Bringing Algeria in from the cold, for Spain, might have blown a fuse in Rabat with the country’s ruling elite called the Makhzen, which could explain quite a few things. Add to that $40 million USD which the Trump administration is reported to have put aside for Rabat, while we begin to see Melilla and Ceuta becoming Moroccan territory in Congress reports (the most recent one being a State Department budget report just signed off by the House), and a picture emerges which puts the entire Ceuta story into context. The geopolitics starts to make sense. “When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one,” Nelson Mandela once said, and this is the story now of Morocco and Spain.
The Ceuta “invasion”, many believe, was merely a stunt to derail the good relations which both countries have enjoyed until now. And it will probably work. If Madrid believes that the U.S. and Israel are goading Rabat on, then clearly Sanchez and his closest advisors will tone down the relationship with Morocco – which in fact is already happening, when one Spanish minister told a journalist “it is clear what is happening”, hinting that Madrid knows who is behind the move and what the objectives were. If Israel has bedazzled the palace in Rabat with the dream of these enclaves becoming Moroccan, then the biggest winners by far are Israel – which is how analysts should frame their take. If relations turn sour between Rabat and Madrid and tensions start to mount over these enclaves, could the U.S. and Israel send warships there to blockade them, as part of a security measure to support its ally, Morocco? Could that even be the basis to send in Moroccan troops to take them over completely? Sounds far-fetched, but there are similarities with what happened after 1975, when the Spanish abandoned Western Sahara and the Moroccan king at that time sent in thousands of Moroccans into the territory to legitimise its claim, assisted with military aid – we shouldn’t forget – from the U.S. The ‘Green March’ is celebrated each year with its own anniversary. In those days, U.S. involvement only enhanced America’s military spending but didn’t really offer the U.S. anything beyond that. Today, for Morocco to make moves on Melilla and Ceuta comes with a huge payback for Israel and the Trump administration, in that it would give the victors a massive annexation of international waters around the Straits of Gibraltar – effectively handing over the straits to Morocco, Israel, the U.S. and UK (Gibraltar). Under such a scenario, Trump would feel emboldened, as he and Bibi could decide which countries enter the Mediterranean and who pays what tariffs, etc. This new arrangement would give Trump exactly what he needs right now – leverage – while presenting on a plate to Israel a decisive blow which it can claim credit for by dealing with the so-called threat from Spain. It would effectively set up Israel as a regional player and breathe new life into the ‘Greater Israel’ project, while giving the King of Morocco the prize of his father’s dream: sovereignty over these two colonial anachronisms. Everyone’s a winner. Trump and Bibi have so much to gain by destroying Rabat’s good relations with Madrid that it’s hardly surprising the Ceuta “invasion” didn’t come earlier. And isn’t it funny that the frequency of how many times Trump announces his undivided support for Rabat’s claim over Western Sahara seems to be increasing? It’s childish thinking, but is he doing this to try to draw attention to other EU “partners” who haven’t done so for a while?
If you think it’s a conspiracy theory that Israel and the U.S. had a hand in the Ceuta stunt, then you probably think Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, or the assassination of JFK. It’s entirely possible that Israel organised the entire thing without even the knowledge of the King, who is distancing himself more and more recently from public duties. Conspiracy theories, remarkably, often have a habit of turning out to be true – but the idea that Ceuta was not organised and just came about randomly and organically is preposterous. Watch Madrid’s next move and how Rabat reacts.
The Galling Gallium Chokehold: Why the US Cannot Produce Precision Missiles and Fully-Functional F-35s
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 3, 2026
Kudos, again, to Kevin Wamsley of Inside China Business. Based on his latest podcast (see below) I did some additional digging. The substance of his video briefing is shocking and alarming, at least for US policymakers and weapons manufacturers. There is a single thread running from the empty nose cones of America’s newest stealth fighters to the laboratories where China is building the internet of the 2030s. That thread is gallium — a soft, silvery byproduct of aluminum refining that almost no one outside a materials-science department thinks about, and that the United States does not produce at all.
A metal America stopped making
The top line from the US Geological Survey is stark: the United States has had no primary domestic gallium production for decades, and its net import reliance sits at 100 percent. China, by contrast, controls the overwhelming majority of global output — figures commonly cited run from 94 to 98 percent of raw production. The reason is structural, not incidental. Gallium is extracted as a byproduct of bauxite and zinc processing, industries China dominates. A country cannot simply decide to make gallium; it must first build the aluminum and zinc industries that yield it, then the extraction, refining, wafer, and packaging lines on top. That is a decade-plus undertaking, not a budget line.
This dependency became a weapon in December 2024, when Beijing banned exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony to the United States, explicitly prohibiting sales to US military end-users. It was retaliation for American semiconductor export controls, and it landed on a Pentagon that, by the USGS’s own accounting, had no gallium in the National Defense Stockpile to fall back on.
One crucial update the alarmist version of this story often omits: in November 2025, as part of a broader trade truce between Presidents Trump and Xi, China suspended the civilian portion of that ban until late November 2026, moving those exports to a licensing regime. But the suspension came with a catch that matters enormously — the prohibition on exports to military end-users stayed in force. So the civilian supply reopened on Beijing’s sufferance, revocable at will, while the weapons-makers remained cut off. The chokehold didn’t release; it was repositioned.
The fighters with counterweights where radars should be
The most vivid symptom of this dependency is also the most easily misunderstood. It is true — confirmed through photographic evidence and industry reporting, though initially denied by the Department of War — that F-35s built from Lot 17 onward are being delivered with counterweights, literal ballast, in their nose cones where radars belong. Reporting has put the number affected in the hundreds.
But the cause is more tangled than “China cut off the gallium.” The immediate culprit is the delayed development and certification of the AN/APG-85, the next-generation radar meant to replace the older AN/APG-81. The APG-85 is built on gallium-nitride (GaN) technology, which delivers far higher power and better thermal efficiency — and demands roughly 82 kilowatts, forcing structural, cooling, and power redesigns to the aircraft’s forward fuselage. Jets from Lot 17 were redesigned to accept the APG-85 and can no longer take the old APG-81. When the new radar slipped, those aircraft had nowhere to turn but counterweights.
Gallium supply is the aggravating factor layered beneath that engineering delay: GaN radars use far more gallium than their predecessors, the DLA has struggled to source it as Japan and Germany lack the capacity to fill the gap, and prices have surged. The honest framing is that America faces a radar-development problem and a materials problem, and China’s monopoly sits underneath both. Meanwhile, China has moved its own J-20 fighter to a next-generation radar reportedly built on the same GaN technology — the qualitative gap the APG-85 was meant to open is instead narrowing.
The vulnerability extends well past one airframe. Gallium nitride underpins the high-power jammers on the EA-18G Growler, the F-35’s own electronic-warfare suite, and the large ground-based radar arrays of the kind destroyed during the fighting in the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon’s supply chains reportedly touch Chinese suppliers across a vast share of weapons components — the dependency is systemic, not a single point of failure.
The same monopoly, pointed at the future
Here the story turns from defense to something larger. The same industrial base that lets China throttle radar production also lets Chinese researchers race ahead on the technology expected to define the next quarter-century of connectivity: 6G.
The headline achievement is real and was published in Nature. A team led by scientists from Peking University and the City University of Hong Kong built what they describe as the world’s first “all-frequency” 6G chip — a device roughly 11 by 1.7 millimeters that integrates the entire wireless spectrum from 0.5 to 115 gigahertz onto a single chip. That span previously required nine separate radio systems. In testing it exceeded 100 gigabits per second on a single channel, which independent write-ups translate to roughly 500 times the real-world speed most users get from 5G today, and it can retune across 6 gigahertz of spectrum in 180 microseconds to hop clear of interference. The researchers built it not from gallium but from thin-film lithium niobate, using a photonic-electronic design, and they intend to shrink it into plug-and-play modules for phones, base stations, drones, and IoT devices.
The strategic point survives the technical correction. Whether the enabling material is gallium in a radar or lithium niobate in a transceiver, the pattern is the same: China increasingly controls both the raw inputs and the pipeline of scientists and engineers turning them into deployable systems. And 6G’s importance is not really about consumers. Few individuals need to download a library of films in seconds. The demand comes from industry — precision robotics, advanced manufacturing, private industrial networks, integrated sensing, low-altitude drone economies — the very sectors where China has already built commanding positions. 6G’s promised leap in speed, latency, and integrated sensing is a boon precisely to the industrial base China is busy consolidating.
The standards are the prize
There is one more dimension that outlasts any single chip. 6G has not yet been standardized worldwide; the global protocols are still being written, precisely because the systems are still being built. Standards bodies — 3GPP, the ITU, the O-RAN Alliance — are only now moving 6G from research into formal specification, with first specs targeted around 2029 and commercial networks around 2030. Whoever builds the working systems first shapes the standards everyone else must adopt.
The Trump administration has recognized the stakes, declaring 6G foundational to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity, and setting a policy of American leadership — directing work on spectrum, commercial applications, and diplomatic coalitions to back the U.S. position. The Boston Consulting Group projects that 5G’s roughly $1 trillion in economic output could grow toward $18 trillion by 2035, with 6G enabling entirely new enterprise models and large-scale AI across manufacturing, cities, healthcare, and public safety.
But intent collides with the same wall. The United States cannot lead in building what it cannot supply. Leadership in 6G requires the mining, refining, fabrication, and — above all — the tens of thousands of trained engineers applying the technology at scale. China is doing that work now. America is still debating how to start.
The bottom line
Strip away the hyperbole and a hard core remains. Today, U.S. contractors cannot reliably put advanced radars on hundred-million-dollar aircraft, in part because China controls a metal America stopped producing forty years ago. Ten years from now, on current trajectory, anyone who wants the best phones, drones, or robots may find the critical components — and the standards they run on — routed through that same country. Supply chains are the whole game, and so are the researchers who turn raw materials into markets. That is the argument, and the uncomfortable part is how much of it is simply true.
Here is Kevin’s video:
Palantir revenue surges 93% amid criticism over support for Israel’s Gaza war
MEMO | August 4, 2026
US artificial intelligence and data analytics company Palantir Technologies reported a 93% year-on-year surge in second-quarter revenue, despite mounting criticism over its support for Israel and the alleged use of its technology in the Gaza war, Anadolu reports.
Revenue reached $1.94 billion in the three months ended June 30, up from $1 billion a year earlier, the company said Monday.
Net income attributable to common shareholders more than tripled to $1.06 billion, while diluted earnings per share rose to $0.41 from $0.13.
Palantir’s US revenue climbed 115% year-on-year to $1.57 billion. US commercial revenue jumped 149% to $764 million, while government revenue increased 90% to $809 million.
“This quarter was otherworldly,” CEO Alex Karp said, citing accelerating demand for what the company calls “AI sovereignty.”
Palantir signed 220 contracts worth at least $1 million during the quarter, including 73 deals valued at $10 million or more.
Total contract value rose 49% to $3.37 billion, while US commercial contract value surged 153% to a record $2.13 billion.
The company raised its full-year revenue forecast to between $8.15 billion and $8.16 billion, from an earlier projection of $7.65 billion to $7.66 billion.
It expects US commercial revenue to exceed $3.42 billion this year, representing growth of at least 134%.
Palantir shares rose more than 14% in after-hours trading following the results.
Founded in 2003, Palantir develops data-analysis software used by companies, intelligence services and military agencies.
The company announced a strategic partnership with Israel’s Defense Ministry in January 2024 to provide technology for war-related missions.
Open Intel, a platform tracking corporate involvement in what it describes as the genocidal war on Gaza, says Palantir has recruited former members of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyberintelligence division.
The group alleges that Palantir’s software combines intercepted communications, satellite imagery and other data to help Israeli forces generate military targeting lists.
US is the real loser if Senate passes virtue signaling Russia sanctions
Lindsey Graham’s “passion project” won’t end the war and, if anything, hurts American economic and political interests
By Jennifer Kavanagh | Responsible Statecraft | August 4, 2026
As the Senate returns to Washington for its last week in session until mid-September, it faces a long to-do list. But for many senators, the top priority is not enacting legislation that will help Americans but instead rushing to approve the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, known colloquially as the “Russia sanctions bill.”
A passion project of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill is intended to increase economic pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The legislation’s backers hope that, by choking off funding for Russia’s war effort, they can force Moscow to make greater concessions in ongoing negotiations to end the four-year old conflict in Ukraine.
But this logic and the bill itself are fundamentally flawed. The new legislation will have a limited effect on Russia’s fortunes; as has been the case since the beginning of the war, additional economic punishments are unlikely to be decisive in Putin’s calculus. In fact, the bill is more likely to harden the Russian position than to soften it.
The bill contains three main types of provisions. First, it codifies and expands sanctions against Kremlin officials, Russian oligarchs, and Russian banks and corporations. Second, it cracks down on Russia’s shadow fleet, increasing penalties against tankers and companies accused of trying to smuggle oil or evade the Western price cap on Russian oil sales.
Third and most significantly, it grants the president the authority to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, though it exempts allies who are reducing their purchases from Russia over time. The bill also allows the president to waive required penalties if deemed important for U.S. national security.
To be sure, if the new bill is passed by Congress and implemented by the White House, it will be economically painful for Russia. The sanctions it prescribes would fully sever Russian banks and energy corporations from the SWIFT system, including Gazprombank, which handles energy transactions. The bill also threatens secondary sanctions and loss of access to SWIFT for third-party intermediaries that continue to process payments from or interact with sanctioned entities. Combined with the bill’s measures aimed at Russia’s shadow fleet, these new sanctions will further complicate any Russian efforts to export oil.
However, after more than four years of sanctions, Russian banks and corporations have already developed alternatives. For example, they can turn to small regional banks that have little exposure to U.S. markets. They can also rely on layered shell companies that work through friendly countries, transactions conducted through “stablecoin” digital currencies, and even direct country-to-country bartering in which Russian commodities are swapped for machinery, microelectronics, or other goods. None of these approaches is convenient, but they will allow Russia to weather even the more draconian penalties included in the new bill.
The bill’s tariff provisions are likely to have even less effect on Russia’s revenues. Theoretically, the legislation targets the top five buyers of Russian oil and gas, a list that would include key U.S. allies like France, Japan, Spain, Turkey, and Belgium. But members of Congress, fearful of giving Trump more authority to use tariffs punitively against U.S. allies, included a waiver for countries that account for less than 15% of Russian exports and are working to decrease their dependency on Russia over time. This list applies to just about every country that might be hit with tariffs for continuing to buy Russian oil and gas, except for three: China, India, and Hungary.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Even if Trump chooses to apply tariffs to these countries, the consequences may be worse for the United States than for Russia.
Tariffs on India could cause Russia real economic pain, as New Delhi has shown itself to be sensitive to threats of U.S. economic penalty. But if the conflict in Iran continues to snarl oil markets, India will face constraints on its ability to shift its demand for oil elsewhere. Moreover, the United States has already tried sanctions on India as a way to pressure Russia, and it didn’t work. It did, however, damage U.S. ties with an important partner in Asia.
China is the leading buyer of both Russian natural gas and oil, and likely the primary target of the bill’s writers. But using tariffs to penalize Chinese oil purchases would be suicidal for Trump. He’s already run the experiment of putting 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, back on Liberation Day in April 2025. The result was so bad for the U.S. economy that it led to the original Trump TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).
Since then, China has shown its willingness to use its dominance in rare earth minerals to retaliate against what it sees as unfair U.S. trade practices, and it would likely do so again if Trump levies tariffs under the authority of the new legislation. But even smaller tariffs on China are unlikely, since Trump is unlikely to do anything in the near term that derails his September meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In the end, the new legislation is unlikely to be the knockout blow that forces Putin to give up on his core demands. The tariff provision may affect Russian oil and gas income on the margins, but its effect will be limited by the Trump administration’s higher priority political goals. Russia’s economy is under strain, but it can withstand the modest costs that Graham’s sanctions bill will impose while sustaining the war effort.
More importantly, the legislation’s underlying premise — that increased economic pressure is the key to ending the war in Ukraine — is as incorrect today as it was back in 2022. Putin has made clear time and again that he is willing to pay a very high price to achieve what he considers to be an acceptable outcome in Ukraine. He views the war as existential, for Russia and for himself personally, and has been largely insensitive to economic levers since the conflict began. This is unlikely to change.
In fact, the new legislation is much more likely to strengthen Russia’s resolve and work against peace. It may do this in two ways. First, it fuels Putin’s narrative that the conflict in Ukraine is really a war between Russia and the West, a storyline that can shore up domestic support and that increases the risks that the war eventually widens. Second, it confirms for Moscow that the United States is not actually interested in peace or in serving as a mediator but rather continues to harbor Biden administration-era hopes of weakening Russia over the long-term.
Many in the U.S. Congress probably realize this but will vote for the bill anyway, a virtue signaling gesture taken at the expense of the voters who elected them. In fact, if there is a loser from this legislation it will be the United States, which will face economic uncertainty and the loss of geopolitical influence as more countries tire of the United States using the dollar as a weapon and look for alternatives.
Bulgaria’s Bezmer Base and the Logic of American Power Projection
By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – August 3, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the Bulgarian parliament voted to authorize the deployment of up to eight U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft and 250 U.S. military personnel at Bezmer Air Base.
The vote was 136 in favor, 13 against, with two abstentions. The deployment is scheduled from July 24 to October 1, 2026. On paper, the government insists this is merely “logistical support.”
A Diplomatic Warning from Tehran
Before the vote, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that allowing the deployment would make Bulgaria “an accomplice of aggressors.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explicitly stated that any action facilitating U.S. military operations against Iran would make Sofia complicit in “aggression and war crimes.”
The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry responded that it was not “undertaking any hostile actions against Iran” and that “it is out of the question for any military operations in the Middle East to be conducted from Bulgarian territory.” The contrast between the official explanation and the operational role of the deployment is difficult to ignore.
Bezmer in the US Logistics Network
Bezmer Air Base, located in southeastern Bulgaria near the town of Yambol, is one of several joint-use facilities established under the 2006 U.S.-Bulgaria Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement allows U.S. forces to use three Bulgarian bases — Bezmer, Graf Ignatievo, and Novo Selo — for training and logistical purposes. Bezmer’s appeal is straightforward: it is close to the Black Sea, has a runway capable of handling large aircraft, and is situated in a country that is a full NATO member.
What makes Bezmer particularly useful is its position within the broader American logistics network. U.S. tanker aircraft operating from Bezmer can refuel fighter jets and bombers over the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Red Sea without returning to bases in Germany, Italy, or Greece. This reduces transit time and allows for sustained operations over a longer period. Bezmer functions as a forward refueling node in a system that stretches from Ramstein in Germany to Souda Bay in Crete to Kogălniceanu in Romania.
The base is not being used for combat operations, but it is enabling them. There is a difference between pulling the trigger and supplying the fuel, but that difference matters less to the pilots being refueled—or to the Iranians being targeted. The Bulgarian government argues that it is merely fulfilling its treaty obligations to its ally. Prime Minister Rumen Radev, often described as more skeptical of Western military adventurism, insisted the tankers would be used “exclusively for logistical and in-flight refuelling missions outside Bulgarian airspace.” The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry echoed this position, stating that no military operations would be conducted from Bulgarian territory.
Spain vs. Bulgaria
The contrast with Spain is instructive. In March 2026, Spain explicitly refused to allow its bases to be used for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares stated that Spanish bases would not be used for operations “inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.” The Spanish government argued that using its territory for offensive operations against Iran would violate its constitutional obligations and its own foreign policy principles. Madrid made a sovereign choice to refuse Washington’s request.
Unlike Spain, Bulgaria ultimately chose to facilitate the deployment, reflecting its broader security dependence on NATO structures. It did not publicly question the legality of the operation, nor did it challenge the broader strategic rationale behind the request. The Bulgarian authorities chose to accommodate the request rather than contest it.
Several factors may explain this difference. Spain has traditionally pursued a more cautious approach towards military involvement in the Middle East, while Bulgaria places greater emphasis on demonstrating reliability within NATO. Different strategic cultures and security priorities appear to have shaped their respective decisions. Bulgaria, by contrast, is a smaller country more dependent on NATO guarantees for its security. It is also a country that has long sought to demonstrate its value as an ally, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine. For Bulgaria, saying no to Washington is not a luxury it believes it can afford.
There is also a domestic political dimension. The decision was approved by a parliament where the government holds a comfortable majority. Local opposition was minimal. Some Bulgarian officials have argued that refusing the request would have damaged Bulgaria’s standing in NATO. A Bulgarian official’s comment encapsulates the logic of alliance dependency: “We cannot want to be in NATO and then refuse to give anything in return.”
Local Concerns
The decision was not universally welcomed. Burnt-out trees from a fire at the Bulgarian military training ground in Koren were still smouldering during the parliamentary debate. Bezmer’s mayor voiced concerns about the region becoming a potential target. Local communities near Bezmer are not convinced by the official narrative.
The concerns are not entirely theoretical. Iran has already shown its willingness to retaliate against countries it perceives as hostile. In the past, Iranian-backed groups have targeted American bases in Iraq and Syria, and Iranian cyber operations have hit European infrastructure. Bulgarians living near Bezmer now have reason to wonder whether their town might become a target in a future escalation.
Alliance Politics in Practice
The Bulgarian parliament’s decision illustrates a broader reality of the transatlantic relationship. European countries are not always eager participants, but they are deeply integrated into the logistics of U.S. military power. These are not signs of European unity—they are signs of fragmentation within a structure that still depends on the United States for security.
The deeper question is whether this arrangement is sustainable. Bulgaria has made a strategic choice to deepen its military integration with the United States. That choice has immediate operational consequences—a tanker base that enables strikes on Iran—and long-term implications for Bulgarian sovereignty. It may also have security consequences if Iran chooses to respond. The Bulgarian parliament’s decision follows a pattern: Europe increasingly functions as a platform for U.S. power projection.
The deployment at Bezmer therefore reflects a broader reality of contemporary alliance politics: even when European governments avoid direct participation in military operations, they increasingly provide the logistical infrastructure that makes those operations possible. As military logistics become increasingly central to modern warfare, the distinction between participation and support may prove more political than operational.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
Call Off the Iran War. Just Walk Away!
By Ron Paul | August 3, 2026
After several days of increasing threats against Iran, including social media posts like “FINISH THE JOB!” and “Take the oil. No mercy!,” President Trump has over the weekend called off a planned major escalation in the Middle East. For now.
“The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II,” he wrote on his social media account. “Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to,” he added.
Iran denies any communication with the US and has threatened retaliation against energy infrastructure in the region if its energy infrastructure is attacked. Such destruction could plunge the world into an economic depression.
Iranian retaliation – including against critical water desalination plants – could also depopulate US allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman personally called President Trump to request he not escalate against Iran.
According to various media articles, the US is running dangerously low on missiles, especially interceptor missiles such as the Patriot system. Our ability to protect our military bases in the Middle East appears to be gone.
Reportedly, President Trump was warned by his top military advisors that a ground operation against Iran would result in a high level of US casualties and would have no guarantee of success. Already the official totals are 18 US service members killed and more than 700 injured in the operation.
Over the weekend the US military completed its evacuation of a major military base in the Kurdish region of Iraq. This follows similar evacuations of virtually every US base in the region, including the home of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain and “safe” US bases in Jordan.
The entirety of US military power in the region appears to have been relocated to Israel.
The war which was supposed to last a couple of weeks and “pay for itself” is entering into its sixth month and the price tag so far is above $100 billion. A war that was started to thwart an Iranian nuclear threat that according to US Intelligence didn’t exist has become a war to open a waterway – the Hormuz Strait – that was open before the war started.
Things are so bad that, according to the Washington Post, the US general in charge of the US European Command sent a message to senior Pentagon officials “saying that without another Navy destroyer he will be forced to choose defense of the United States ‘homeland’ over that of Israel.” How is defending a foreign country over our own country even a choice?
The US attack on Iran is the most unpopular major US military operation in history and is becoming more unpopular by the day. President Trump’s polling numbers have been dragged down to the low 30s by the conflict. Midterm elections are three months away.
President Trump is rapidly running out of options in his war of choice against Iran. There is no path to victory in the war. It is now only about how to manage defeat. That’s why the Constitution does not allow presidents to start wars on their own.
Get out now. Completely out. The foolish war on Iran must end!
His Majesty’s plunder: The royal machine behind the Trump Highway and Western Sahara’s phosphate wealth
The Cradle | August 3, 2026
There is a machine in the Sahara you can see from space. A conveyor belt, the longest on earth, nearly one hundred kilometers of steel from a mine called Bou Craa to the Atlantic. For half a century it has moved phosphate out of occupied Western Sahara, through wars, ceasefires, and a promised referendum that never came. The richest layer of the deposit is already gone, sold before the Sahrawis could ever vote on it. And the electricity that keeps the belt running is sold to the state by a wind farm belonging to the king.
On 26 July, US President Donald Trump announced that the highway running past this machine now carries his name. The announcement arrived as a four-minute Truth Social video, narrated by an obvious AI voice praising his “historic courage.” Rabat, six days on, has not said the name out loud. It does not need to. The name was never the payment.
The road is. It is 1,055 kilometers of settlement poured across Africa’s last colony, the kind of road empires have always built and named for themselves. It connects the mine, the port, an Israeli-held offshore block, and the duty-free fertilizer now sailing for New Orleans under an emergency Washington manufactured itself. Follow it far enough and the asphalt runs from phosphate to palace.
An occupation, bought in installments
Every payment has a paper trail, and this one begins five years before the name. The convention that built the road was signed in the presence of Moroccan King Mohammed VI in El-Aaiun (also known as Laayoune) in 2015, on the 40th anniversary of the Green March, at a cost of 10 billion Moroccan dirhams (MAD) – or around $1.074 billion. Morocco poured its annexation in asphalt, as empires always have, long before Washington blessed it. What arrived in December 2020 was not the road. It was the signature.
Morocco became the fourth Arab state to normalize relations with the occupation state, and in exchange the US recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the whole of Western Sahara. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, negotiated the deal and supplied the doctrine, likening the Sahara recognition to Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. One occupation legitimized on the template of another. The architect said it so no analyst has to.
Tel Aviv paid its own installment in July 2023, when Netanyahu sent Mohammed VI a letter recognizing the Moroccan claim. A senior Moroccan official explained what the letter was for – Rabat expects the recognition to encourage Israeli investment in the territory. Recognition as prospectus. This is trans-Zionism as designed: the occupation state sets the template, Washington executes, the client kingdom collects.
What the road runs past
South of El-Aaiun, the machine comes back into view. The Bou Craa mine feeds its conveyor belt to the harbor at El-Aaiun, where bulk vessels have carried the territory’s wealth abroad since 1975. According to the figures of the world’s largest phosphate and fertilizer producer, Morocco’s OCP Group, Bou Craa delivers around a fifth of the company’s exports from just eight percent of its extracted volume. That is what occupations are for.
The quality tells its own story. Bou Craa’s deposit sits in two layers, and Western Sahara Resource Watch, which tracks every bulk shipment out of El-Aaiun, documented that Morocco has practically sold off the high-grade layer that should have been available to the Sahrawi people, mining the poorer second seam since 2014. What remains is the residue.
None of this is legally ambiguous. The UN’s legal counsel concluded in 2002 that further exploitation of the territory’s resources against the wishes of its people would violate international law. A South African court ruled in 2018 that ownership of a phosphate cargo from El-Aaiun was never lawfully vested in OCP at all. The company ships stolen goods. A court has said so. The road Trump wants his name on is the overland artery of that trade.
An emergency of Washington’s own making
The American market took the long way round. In 2021, Washington slapped a 19.97 percent countervailing duty on OCP after Florida’s Mosaic Company complained of subsidized competition. The rate yo-yoed for five years until a trade court cut it to 2.11 percent in December 2025 and Washington quietly dropped its appeal. Then came the war.
Washington’s strikes on Iran choked the Strait of Hormuz, the artery for roughly a third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade. Prices climbed, farmers rationed, and on 29 June Trump declared a national emergency under a Depression-era clause of the 1930 Tariff Act, suspending the duties entirely. The suspension is time-bound, not volume-bound: a USDA official confirmed OCP can ship unlimited tonnage for eight months. Washington set fire to the supply chain, declared an emergency over the smoke, and handed the normalization partner the keys to the American market.
Now examine what sails in. North African sedimentary phosphate is naturally high in cadmium, a carcinogen the EU capped at 60 milligrams per kilo in its fertilizers. OCP’s response was to lobby against the cap, hiring Dechert LLP and Edelman and proposing Brussels raise the limit to 80. The US has no comparable federal ceiling, leaving oversight to a patchwork of state rules. Europe’s restricted rock has found a market with no thermostat. American capital wasted no time: two weeks after the proclamation, US-based firm Koch Ag signed a joint venture stake in OCP’s fertilizer complex at Jorf Lasfar. The same conglomerate poured half a billion dollars into the occupation state’s tech sector through its investment arm Koch Disruptive Technologies (KDT), built under Eli Groner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former top civil servant, settled in the occupied West Bank.
From phosphate to palace
Tracing the flow of revenue shows that it extends beyond the state treasury. OCP belongs to the Moroccan state. But the throne sits atop a parallel structure: the royal family controls roughly 60 percent of the Al-Mada conglomerate through personal holdings named SIGER and ERGIS, both derived from regis, Latin for king, feeding a fund in which Mohammed VI holds 50.6 percent. SIGER’s director, Mounir Majidi, is also the king’s private secretary: one man running the head of state’s office and the family vault.
Al-Mada’s energy arm, Nareva, is where the phosphate money turns royal. The wind farm at Foum el-Oued, built by a wholly-owned Nareva subsidiary, supplies nearly all the electricity OCP needs to mine Bou Craa, run the conveyor belt, and wash the rock for export. The state plunders the phosphate. The king sells the state the power that does the plundering. Every tonne leaving El-Aaiun has burned royal electricity first. All but one wind farm in the occupied territory sits in Nareva’s portfolio, and WSRW poses the question that answers itself: why would a king who profits from occupation ever back a UN peace process?
Moroccan outlet Barlamane reported that quantities invoiced on the expressway far exceeded the work actually built, prompting the equipment minister to bar the implicated survey bureau from public contracts for five years. On the road to Dakhla, even the overcharging is infrastructure.
The name was never the payment
Empires have always paved roads through conquered land and called it civilization. Rome did it, France did it in this same desert, and in July 2026 the tradition produced its densest month yet: duty-free phosphate sailing for New Orleans, Kosh Ag signing into Jorf Lasfar, and an American president naming a highway across a territory that was never Morocco’s to give. The belt at Bou Craa keeps turning, the royal turbines keep spinning, the receipts keep printing – and the only thing Rabat has still not done is say the name out loud.
Featured Video
“Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Why the War on Conspiracy Theories Is Bad Public Policy
By Kevin Barrett • Unz Review • February 1, 2019
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- BRITAIN’S WARNING: PREPARE FOR WAR
- “Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
- How the Cambridge Analytica scandal still haunts Mark Zuckerberg
- The Ongoing Cancellation Campaign Against a Dissenting Academic in Norway
- Yemen and ‘the Houthis’: Challenging Sami Hamdi’s Narrative
- No, Christians did not invent Zionism
- AIPAC-led lobbying network opens branches in Cypriot, Greek parliaments
- Araghchi blasts ‘parasitic’ alliance as US taxpayers pay for Israel’s war on Iran
- Easy fix for Europe’s chaos? Stop fueling war against Russia
- Putin’s key remarks on peace talks and Europe’s ‘schizophrenia’
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
