IRAN GOT NOTHING FROM the MoU – Nima Alkhorshid
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026
US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0
A shorter declaration masks deeper tensions, as Washington pushes to reshape NATO’s role from Europe to West Asia and Asia-Pacific.
By Mehmet Ali Guller | The Cradle | July 11, 2026
The six-point final declaration of the NATO Ankara Summit is among the shortest in recent years, similar to last year’s five-point declaration from The Hague. In contrast, the 2021 Brussels Summit declaration contained 79 points, Madrid in 2022 had 22, Vilnius in 2023 included 90, and Washington in 2024 featured 38.
The sharp reduction reflects ongoing tensions between the US and Europe. The declaration is brief because areas of agreement remain limited. The debate over NATO as a “paper tiger” has not been resolved, only set aside.
In the declaration, this issue is temporarily addressed through the slogan “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”
Ankara Declaration targets Russia and Iran
The first article of the six-point Ankara declaration reaffirms commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, while the final article offers thanks to the host country.
The remaining four articles center on Russia, outline a $70 billion support package for Ukraine, expand defense spending, reference $50 billion in arms deals, and briefly touch on Iran.
The Donroe Doctrine and NATO 3.0
Washington is seeking to adapt NATO to what it frames as a new strategic phase, described here as NATO 3.0. The so-called Donroe Doctrine centers on consolidating dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shifting more responsibility onto allies in Europe and elsewhere, and encircling China in the Asia-Pacific through partnerships.
In practice, this takes three forms:
- Europe assumes primary responsibility for its own security, including taking the lead in supporting Ukraine against Russia.
- A new order is established in West Asia under Israeli hegemony, requiring normalization between NATO member Turkiye and Israel, as well as between Israel and Syria and the Gulf states, while weakening Iran as the principal obstacle.
- NATO deepens cooperation with its Asia-Pacific partners—the IP4 countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—integrating them into its arms supply chain and gradually extending NATO’s reach into Asia.
The political economy of NATO 3.0
Washington views militarization as the lever for the transformation of NATO 3.0. It has two key objectives: raising NATO members’ defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and building a new arms production chain. The first step was initiated in The Hague last year, and the second advanced in Ankara.
Pushing defense spending to 5 percent would generate a vast financial pool within a few years. Including NATO partners such as Japan would further expand the scale, creating a market that draws broad interest. The US aims to distribute this pool in a way that sustains the NATO 3.0 framework.
Alongside this sits the effort to construct a new arms supply chain. The approach is to retain control over core components while distributing subcomponent production across allies, linking them to one another and ultimately to Washington.
The $50 billion arms deals referenced in the declaration mark an initial step. The $10 billion NATO–South Korea agreement, which grants Seoul access to NATO’s joint defense procurement market, fits within this model.
A new military-industrial economy
For the Erdogan government, securing a share of expanding defense spending has become a priority. Ankara sees this as an opening for its defense sector, particularly through the state firm ASELSAN and the private company BAYKAR.
The Defense Industry Forum, long held as a side event at NATO summits, was included in the official program in Ankara for the first time, reflecting that shift.
Countries seeking a share of this expanding market and Washington’s effort to allocate that share in line with its strategy have converged.
The idea of a NATO Defense Bank is also on the agenda. Nine countries laid its groundwork during the Ankara summit. If realized, it would tie a military-industrial model more closely to financial capital.
Turkiye 3.0: NATO’s central frontline state
For Turkiye, NATO 3.0 also signals a new phase.
NATO 1.0 covers the period from the alliance’s founding to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that time, Turkiye was integrated into US strategy, diluting its founding emphasis on independence and anti-imperialism, eroding aspects of its secular character through the Green Belt project, and absorbing its human capital within anti-communist programs.
NATO 2.0 spans the period from 1991 to 2026. In these years, NATO expanded toward Russia, dismantled Yugoslavia, and intervened across West Asia. Turkiye’s role was again shaped within US strategy, this time through “moderate Islamism.”
NATO 3.0 is defined by Europe taking on security responsibility against Russia, the pursuit of a West Asian order under Israeli dominance, and a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific.
Within this framework, Turkiye is positioned as a security enforcer for Europe, encouraged to normalize relations with Tel Aviv to secure a place in the regional order, and drawn into efforts aimed at countering Iran.
In effect, Turkiye is being placed at the center of NATO’s frontline. The naval command under construction in the Bosphorus is directed toward Russia, while the new NATO Corps headquarters in Adana is oriented toward West Asia and Iran.
Washington’s ‘Asian NATO’ objective
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte effectively represents US leadership within the alliance. His statements reflect Washington’s position rather than Europe’s.
His remarks before and during the summit pointed to a longer-term objective. Rutte argued that Russia was working closely with North Korea, China and Iran, adding that NATO “cannot be naive” and had to remain united.
At its core, NATO 3.0 reflects an effort to use the alliance first against Beijing’s partners—Russia and Iran—and, over time, against China itself. The push to reorient NATO toward Asia follows from this.
For the past four years, leaders of the IP4 countries have been invited to NATO summits. In Ankara, discussions with these states focused on expanding cooperation in defense industries and advanced technologies.
Washington is pressing these partners toward closer military alignment, at times resembling a sub-alliance—an “Asian NATO.” Proposals to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo—though contested, notably by France—form part of this effort.
Washington, however, has continued to push for a broader NATO role in Asia. As Rutte put it, “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are closely interconnected,” reinforcing efforts to extend the alliance’s focus beyond its original geographic remit.
Expectations from NATO 3.0
Following the Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 is expected to serve different priorities:
- For the US: aligning NATO with its Asia-Pacific strategy.
- For Europe: maintaining US involvement in European security even as direct support shifts.
- For Turkiye: expanding a military-industrial growth model.
For countries across the Global South, NATO is widely viewed as an outdated military alliance whose role has run its course.
Dressen v. Flaherty: Vaccine Censorship Case Goes to Appeal
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 10, 2026
Federal officials set out to erase the online voices of Americans who said Covid vaccines had hurt them. A new appeal asks the Fifth Circuit to give those Americans their day in court.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its opening brief on July 7, asking the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive Dressen v. Flaherty.
We obtained a copy of the brief for you here.
A federal judge in Texas had thrown the case out before a single document changed hands in discovery. The suit accuses the Biden administration of running a joint government and private censorship operation against people who went online to talk about vaccine injuries.
Brianne Dressen alleges she was injured after she volunteered for an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, and Suzanna Newell each reportedly suffered serious, debilitating injuries after Covid vaccination. Ernest Ramirez was vaccinated without incident and then lost his healthy 16-year-old son five days after the boy received his first Pfizer dose. The autopsy pointed to an enlarged heart and myocarditis.
They did what people in pain tend to do. They went to social media to trade medical research, look for treatments, share hopeful stories, and find others who understood. For many of them, closed online support groups became a lifeline.
The government treated that lifeline as a threat. The Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, HHS, DHS, CISA, and the White House leaned on social media companies to flag this speech as “misinformation,” shadow-ban it, or delete it outright.
The operation reached across agencies and into the platforms themselves, coercing and colluding with the companies that decide who gets to be heard.
Stanford supplied the machinery. The now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and its “Virality Project” tracked posts and handed the platforms lists of speech to suppress.
The Virality Project targeted Covid-vaccine speech that broke from the administration’s preferred policies, whether or not that speech was accurate. Real accounts of real injuries got flagged because they were inconvenient, not because they were false.
The censors were specific about their targets. Their tracking called out Bri Dressen by name. A woman reportedly injured in a vaccine trial, describing what happened to her own body, became something a federal effort wanted the public not to see.
None of that was enough for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which dismissed the case at the pleading stage. The plaintiffs had laid out a detailed factual account of a nationwide censorship conspiracy, and the court closed the door before discovery could begin.
NCLA’s brief says the district court got the law wrong in several ways. The judge set too narrow and exacting a bar on personal jurisdiction and used it to wave off the Stanford defendants and the individual government officials.
The court also misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri, which weighed whether a different set of NCLA clients had shown enough to win a preliminary injunction. No injunction is being sought here, so that higher standard does not govern this case.
The brief argues, the court made a further error on the civil-rights conspiracy claim. It tossed the plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S. Code Section 1985(3) on the theory that they had not alleged racial discrimination. The statute never mentions race. It protects “any person or class of persons” stripped of their rights through an invidiously discriminatory conspiracy, and the Supreme Court has said the provision can reach non-racial classes.
“To call what happened to our clients ‘troubling’ is a massive understatement. After suffering devastating medical injuries following Covid vaccination, they turned to social media as a lifeline for support and connection with others who understood. Rather than compassion or aid, the Government responded with relentless censorship, maligning them as liars and conspiracy theorists and cutting off the lifelines that they depended on.
“Their only offense was that their lived experiences, pain, and even private conversations in online support groups contradicted the Administration’s preferred Covid-vaccine narrative. The cruelty and injustice are difficult to overstate,” said Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The appeal also presses a point the district court skipped over. Censorship harms more than the person silenced.
“We are confident the Fifth Circuit will correct the District Court’s numerous errors in dismissing the complaint, which included taking an inappropriately narrow view of personal jurisdiction and ignoring that not just speakers, but also potential listeners, suffer harm resulting from unlawful government censorship,” said Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The stakes reach past these six plaintiffs. If courts keep reading Murthy as a wall against every censorship suit, the government gains a template for silencing people with almost no risk of accountability.
“Lower courts are misapplying the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri decision, and the ruling below here is a prime example. The Murthy decision set a high bar for standing in the context of a preliminary injunction to stop future censorship. But no PI was sought here, so the Murthy standard is not applicable. If Bri Dressen cannot satisfy standing—when the defendants called her out by name in their censorship tracking—then no one will,” said Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of NCLA.
According to NCLA, the campaign still burdens its clients’ ability to speak, to associate privately, and to exchange information with others in closed support groups.
The question in front of the Fifth Circuit is whether Americans silenced by their own government can even make their case to a jury, or whether the courthouse door stays shut before anyone looks at the evidence.
Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026
Türkiye sells S-400 systems to undisclosed Gulf state
Al Mayadeen | July 10, 2026
Türkiye has sold its S-400 air defense systems to an unnamed Gulf country, with the announcement expected to be made on Friday.
Turkish newspaper, Hürriyet journalist Abdulkadir Selvi reported that an informed source told him Ankara finalized the sale of its S-400 systems after a deal was approved overnight on Friday.
He added that the speculated buyers are either the UAE or Qatar, noting that the information will remain unknown until an official statement is made.
Selvi noted that the US assets in the UAE being targeted by retaliatory Iranian strikes during the war on Iran were a cause for wanting an increased air defense presence. He added that the attacks “crippled the UAE’s tourism-based system,” adding that it “has been trying to acquire alternative defense systems” after the Iranian retaliation.
He also brought up the Israeli attack on Qatar last year as a significant reason why Doha may want new air defense systems, as Qatar’s Patriot missile system did not activate during the attack on the Hamas officials in the capital city due to “Israel” being coded as a friendly country.
“Qatar learned from this shock attack that it was unprotected against Israel,” Selvi said.
The Hürriyet journalist reported that regardless of which Gulf state the S-400 goes to, Türkiye seeks to gain freedom from US sanctions from the sale.
Ankara is currently a target of the American sanctions package, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which mandates penalties for entities that participate in “significant transactions” with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.
The sale of the Russian-made S-400 systems could give Türkiye the break it needs to relieve itself of these sanctions that have barred it from the F-35 fighter jet program.
It is worth noting that US President Donald Trump signaled at returning Türkiye to the F-35 fighter jet program after a years-long ban, which caused tears in the relationship between Ankara and Washington.
US/Israeli equipment failing against new hypersonic tactic
Sputnik – 10.07.2026
The Russian military’s strategy of combined aerial attacks, involving waves of strike drones followed up by ballistic, cruise or hypersonic missiles, has proven highly effective not only in the Ukrainian theater, but Iran’s defense against US and Israeli aggression, says Russian defense analyst Alexander Stepanov.
The tactic, almost impossible to defend against, involves:
- drones (slow-flying Geran-2s, faster Geran-4s or rocket-powered Geran-5s – which fly at speeds up to 800 km/h) which by themselves are “extremely difficult” to down using small arms and air defense means available to mobile fire teams
- “multiple wave” tactics designed to overwhelm and expend expensive and limited Patriot missile stocks and overload enemy air defenses, forcing Ukraine to disperse its Patriot launchers
- follow-up precision ballistic and quasi-ballistic missile attacks
Patriots, the last line of defense in Kiev’s arsenal, have four missiles per launcher in their PAC-2 variant, and up to 16 in PAC-3. Typically, two missiles are assigned to a single target.
Playing the Numbers Game
When Russia launches hundreds of projectiles across multiple waves, defense essentially becomes impossible, and involves expending interceptors which cost tens if not hundreds of times more than the strike systems they’re targeting ($4.2-5.3M per Patriot interceptor, compared to tens of thousands of dollars in the case of Geran drones).
“All these points create extreme vulnerabilities for SAM operators forced to respond quickly to serious threats, including in the context of massive combined attacks,” Stepanov says.
“Even if they manage to repel the first wave of attack drones, [the next waves include] ballistic weapons, high-precision missiles that can fly along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, including Iskanders, and hypersonic ones, like Zircons and the air-launched Kinzhals.”
“There is a clear understanding that the equipment being shipped, primarily through NATO countries and the United States, are incapable of countering these speeds. We saw this as well in the Iranian campaign, when expensive systems, including THAAD over-the-horizon interceptors, failed to cope with attacks and were destroyed, along with expensive radars and the regional component of the US’s global early warning system,” Stepanov summed up.
Denmark wants NATO to protect it from US
By Lucas Leiroz | July 10, 2026
Tensions between the US and Denmark over Greenland continue to rise. US President Donald Trump refuses to change his stance regarding the alleged “need” for the US to control Greenland, while the Danish government emphasizes that it will defend its territory by all possible means – even using military force, if necessary. The major issue, however, is that both countries are members of the same military alliance. Denmark believes it would be supported by its partners in a potential conflict with the US, ignoring the fact that NATO is historically led by Washington.
The issue of Greenland was one of the topics discussed at the recent NATO summit in Ankara. During a joint press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump confirmed that he remains interested in acquiring control of the region. He argued that Greenland should not remain associated to Denmark, as the two entities provide no mutual benefit and are, in practice, supposedly already de facto separate. He therefore believes there should be a definitive transition to American control, given that the US has greater interests and a better capacity to “help Greenland” than Denmark does.
“That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark (…) Greenland does not help Denmark. Denmark does not really spend money to help Greenland,” he said.
His statement was immediately responded by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who also attended the meeting in Ankara. She not only affirmed Denmark’s readiness to defend its territory – including through military means – but also stated that NATO would defend Denmark in such a scenario. According to her, NATO’s collective defense clause applies to any instance of military aggression against a member state, regardless of the aggressor state. Consequently, if the US were to attack Danish territory to annex Greenland, the entire alliance would be expected to stand with Denmark against the US.
“[The US is] an erstwhile friend (…) We are ready to defend any inch of NATO, including our own territory (…) [And] the same goes for the US,” she said.
In theory, the Danish Prime Minister is correct. NATO should protect its members, even in the event of a war against another member of the alliance. However, in practice, that is not what would happen. The US is the leading nation within NATO. The organization was established during the Cold War as a collective defense bloc for Western nations, all of which are under the American nuclear umbrella. Although NATO member states formally retain sovereignty, in practice, the alliance is nothing more than an “international army” at the service of Washington [and ultimately Israel]. Therefore, it is entirely illogical to expect NATO to go to war against the US to protect a European country.
Tensions between the US and Europe have been rising since Trump took office. The US president demands greater defense investment and combat readiness from Europeans to assist the US (especially in the Middle East). Europeans are failing to meet the alliance’s financial targets and refuse to participate in the conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, they remain engaged in an irrational war campaign against Russia and are promoting a plan for continental militarization, attempting to gain greater defense “autonomy”.
If European militarization plans succeed, Denmark might secure some international support in the event of a conflict with the US. However, it is entirely irrational to expect US-led NATO to fight against the US itself. In a scenario involving military engagement between the US and Denmark (or any other alliance member), NATO countries would face only two options: support the US or remain neutral.
However, it is questionable whether Frederiksen truly believes her own words. She may be promoting such rhetoric just to encourage European militarization or to appease Danish public opinion, thereby attempting to project an image of political strength that she has failed to cultivate until now. In any case, Trump is serious about annexing Greenland, as control over this territory is vital to his plans for American expansion into the Arctic. Trump considers European nations unable to assist with his Arctic strategy and therefore wants the US to control key territories in the region.
As the crisis deepens, both Denmark and the US seem to ignore the will of the local Greenlandic people. The region is inhabited by an indigenous Inuit majority. The local population was historically persecuted by the Danes, who carried out campaigns of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and forced population reduction. Now, the US – which also has a history of severe persecution against indigenous peoples – seeks to annex the region without even consulting the local population.
The international community – especially international law and human rights organizations – should intervene directly in this matter, emphasizing the need to prioritize the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Congress Aims to Give Israel Leverage Over America
By Harrison Berger | The American Conservative | July 5, 2026
Amid record-high public hostility toward Israel and the wars taxpayers are financing on its behalf, the Israel lobby has mobilized to pass a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 which includes language designed to sustain the years long wealth transfer from Americans to Israelis and cement that relationship in ways that would be less transparent and more difficult to challenge through democratic processes.
At the same time, a coalition led by outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has launched a counteroffensive to block a separate track of funding for Israel’s wars, targeting the transfer of $3.3 billion to Israel embedded within the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, which is also up for vote this summer.
The first bill—the NDAA—was highlighted by The American Conservative earlier this month. It includes language within its Section 224 (since renumbered Section 219 in the House) that would direct the Pentagon to identify Israeli-origin technologies “for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record” and to build “United States-based co-production or manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry.” Section 219, if enacted, “would be unprecedented,” Annelle Sheline of the Quincy Institute told TAC. “No other foreign country has an executive agent in the Pentagon to integrate our military industrial complex with theirs.”
Along with merging Israeli and American weapons technology and data, Section 219 would shift funding for Israeli weaponry from Congress to the Pentagon’s murky procurement system.
“This so clearly seems to be an attempt to shield money from cratering public opinion,” Sheline said. She noted that “Americans do not want to fund a country engaged in genocide and which led us into the Iran War,” adding that, rather than representing public opinion and cutting off Israel’s funding, Congress has moved to conceal it.
Such a merger carries inherent national security risks. The presence of foreign components in U.S. systems raises the threat those systems’ integrity will be compromised, a danger heightened in this case by Israel’s demonstrated capability and willingness to weaponize supply chains, as exhibited in their 2024 attack that involved the detonation of thousands of pagers which had been engineered into remote-controlled bombs. Joe Kent, the former director of the National Center for Counterterrorism, argues similarly that “the dangers of allowing any other nation to access our sensitive military technologies are obvious, including the fact that back doors and spyware can be installed that will most certainly be used by the Israelis to influence U.S. policy.”
But Section 219 of the NDAA would hinder American national security in much more immediate ways, principally by reducing the leverage Washington currently maintains to influence Israeli behavior in the region. “At present,” Sheline explains, “Israel is dependent on U.S. weapons and components, particularly their air force.” That U.S. support has enabled the Israelis to perpetrate a genocide in Gaza, ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, and launch two wars against Iran, with Israel’s defense minister recently threatening a third.
“The U.S. could at present use leverage to change that Israeli behavior,” Sheline says. But by merging U.S. and Israeli weapons development, “this legislation would reverse it so that the [Israelis] could do that to us.”
Despite the various threats to American national security posed by the provision, section 219 this week moved closer to its expected final passage, with the House Rules Committee on Monday rejecting a bipartisan amendment introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) that would have stripped the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” from the NDAA.
Massie’s efforts to stop a separate track for Israel funding attached to the State Department’s spending bill may be more successful. His other amendment—which seeks to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual funding for Israel tied to a 10-year, $38 billion MoU—has reportedly provoked panic among House Democrats, who face pressure from constituents with record-low views of Israel.
Punchbowl News reported that House Democrats “expressed alarm” in a closed meeting and were “begging for leadership guidance” on how to vote while Axios reported on Wednesday that Democrats “fear intense backlash from their base if they oppose” Massie’s amendment to halt Israel funding. Democrats who continue to support wealth transfers from the American tax base to Israelis are aware that doing so comes with the heightened risk of being unseated for it, with the recent ouster of Israel First Democrats Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) serving as a warning to any Democrats who continue to defy the will of the Democratic Party base.
The Massie amendment to cut off funds for Israeli offensive weaponry “may end up being the last time these sorts of votes are meaningful,” says Sheline. “If we proceed with defense industrial integration (Section 219), congress won’t be able to vote on it again.”
Harrison Berger is a correspondent at The American Conservative. He has contributed to Drop Site News, The Nation, and Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He studied Political Science and Russian Studies at Union College (NY).
Trump Declares MoU With Iran is Dead
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 9, 2026
The drama over the Strait of Hormuz escalated on Wednesday with Donald Trump declaring the MoU with Iran is dead and vowed more attacks on Iran. Trump continues to insist that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz, but the fact is that Iran is acting within its rights under the terms spelled out in paragraph five of the MoU (which I discussed in my previous post). The US attack on Iranian outposts along the shore of the Persian Gulf on Tuesday was a set up — i.e., the US coordinated with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to have their ships defy the Iranian protocol to register the voyage with the IRGC, which precipitated the Iranian attack on those vessels. While falsely claiming this was a violation of the MoU, Donald Trump hit Iran with bombs starting late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning Iranian time.
Unlike the previous incidents on June 25 and June 26, where Iran hit non-compliant ships and the US did a one-off airstrike on Iranian positions on the shore of the Strait of Hormuz following each incident, Trump launched a new series of attacks on Iran on July 8 (Wednesday) even though Iran had not attacked another ship. Why did Trump do this? Was it retaliation for some anti-ship missiles fired at the US Carrier Strike Group operating 200 miles off the coast of Iran? That’s my hypothesis… One or more missiles hit one or more US vessels, causing some damage that has not been reported publicly.
Trump’s Wednesday strikes doubled the size of the ones he ordered on Tuesday. Iran, in response, launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq al Salti airbase in Jordan. I have no reports regarding physical battle damage. However, the Trump attack prompted an ominous warning from the spokesman for Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, who stated that a renewed US attack will be answered with a change in nuclear doctrine. He also said:
➡ In any future confrontation, the enemy will face a comprehensive, all-out surprise offensive from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
➡ We have many options available that were not even used during the 40-day war.
➡ Options such as withdrawal from the NPT, changing nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz are on the table for review.
➡ A bill for NPT withdrawal is also ready for review in parliament — and if Iran faces an existential threat, a change in nuclear doctrine could also be put on the agenda
Pressure is growing in Iran to withdraw from the MoU. The US has violated almost every section of the MoU while Iran has assiduously adhered to it — including keeping Hezbollah from going on the offensive against the Israelis. Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury announced on July 7 that the US would reinstate oil sanctions on Iran, which marks another clear violation of the MoU.
According to vesselfinder.com, the activity in the Strait of Hormuz as I write this article is scant, but the ships transiting the straight are abiding by Iran’s PGSA protocols. If Trump opts to continue attacking Iran on Thursday then I believe that Iran will expand the scope and severity of its retaliatory strikes. Without some immediate concessions from the US, I believe that Iran will agree with Trump — i.e., “The MoU is dead.”
Doctor faces up to 50-year jail sentence — Is it because he promoted monoclonal antibodies instead of COVID vaccines?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 7, 2026
In 2021, Dr. Ron Elfenbein, a physician who operated FirstCall Medical Center in Maryland, went on Fox News to criticize the Biden administration’s policies limiting access to monoclonal antibodies. Speaking during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Elfenbein insisted that monoclonal antibodies were effective in treating COVID-19.
Four months later, the federal government indicted Elfenbein on five counts of fraudulent coding and billing at his clinics, alleging that Elfenbein “upcoded” by billing for a higher level of treatment than provided.
But Elfenbein said he believes the charges were motivated by his support for monoclonal antibodies — and a federal judge agreed.
In August 2023, a jury found Elfenbein guilty. But in response to Elfenbein’s motion for acquittal, U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar threw out the jury’s verdict and acquitted Elfenbein in December 2023.
In his 93-page ruling, Bredar said the government did not present enough evidence to convict Elfenbein, instead relying on “loose definitions” and an “imperfect” set of standards governing medical coding.
“The evidence weighs so heavily in favor of the defendant that it would be unjust to enter judgment against him,” Bredar wrote.
“That kind of post-verdict acquittal is extraordinarily rare,” said Dr. Kirk Moore, a Utah plastic surgeon who last year was acquitted on federal charges that he issued falsified COVID-19 vaccination cards. “Judges almost never overturn juries. Bredar did it because the case was just that empty.”
Yet, in the final days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed. In July 2025, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the original jury had enough evidence to convict Elfenbein and sent the case back to the trial court.
“The government doesn’t get to lose, apparently,” Moore said. “They just get to keep swinging, bullying their way through a judicial system that is now built for this exact purpose.”
In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Elfenbein’s appeal.
In an interview with The Defender, Elfenbein said that his new trial is scheduled for January 2027. He believes he is unfairly being targeted as a “whistleblower” who was trying to help the public during a global pandemic and who was charged despite a lack of evidence against him.
He faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all five charges.
Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, said the case against Elfenbein is “inexplicable” and that there were no coding errors or any criminal intent.
“Nobody was harmed. No patient was harmed. No insurance company was harmed. The federal government was harmed,” Kirsch said — because promoting monoclonal antibodies undermined the government’s promotion of COVID-19 vaccines.
Government’s case ‘the height of bureaucratic arrogance’
According to Elfenbein, his network of clinics rapidly expanded operations early during the COVID-19 pandemic in response to “unprecedented” circumstances.
“No one really understood what to do. Everything was sort of ‘fly by the seat of your pants.’ So, we had to invent everything,” Elfenbein said. He cited the example of drive-up COVID-19 testing with provider evaluation, which he said his clinics were the first to offer in Maryland.
“At one point, we were seeing over 1,000 patients a day across six different or eight different sites. And we had to figure out how to accommodate that,” Elfenbein said.
Elfenbein said that at his drive-up testing sites and in his urgent care facilities, patients would communicate with practitioners virtually through a television screen and microphone. Their results would then be delivered electronically.
In 2021, Elfenbein began offering monoclonal antibodies to COVID-19 patients. At the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he set up a monoclonal antibody clinic at FedEx Field outside of Washington, D.C.
In an April interview with The MAHA Report, Elfenbein said the clinics performed 5,000 infusions.
Monoclonal antibodies are produced in labs and designed to replicate the immune system’s response to pathogens. Elfenbein said the treatments — and his test-and-treat model, where patients would be tested and treated at the same site — were successful and became “the model for the entire country moving forward.”
“It was like battlefield medicine, just trying to improvise and do as much as you can and as much good as you can in as little amount of time as possible,” Elfenbein said.
Elfenbein said that despite their success in treating COVID-19 patients, the Biden administration significantly curtailed the use of monoclonal antibodies in December 2021, making it much more difficult for practitioners in certain states to obtain the treatment.
That same month, Elfenbein told Fox News that people were “going to die” as a result of not having access to monoclonal antibodies. He made similar remarks in an interview with Newsmax during this period.
“It’s just the height of bureaucratic arrogance, and it’s … horrible,” Elfenbein told Fox News at the time.
The ‘government’s looking to put me in jail for 50 years … over $250’
Four months later, in April 2022, Elfenbein was out with his son when he received a phone call from his clinic, informing him that two federal agents wanted to speak with him. He later learned that the DOJ planned to indict him on healthcare fraud charges.
While the circumstances of his indictment were initially unclear, Elfenbein said he learned during the pre-trial discovery phase that undercover agents posing as patients had visited his testing facilities after his Fox News interview.
The DOJ alleged that, in the case of five patients who visited Elfenbein’s testing facilities, insurers were charged more than they should have been for the level of treatment provided, as a result of “upcoding.”
According to Elfenbein, there are “four different codes you can pick from when you’re doing evaluation and management” of a patient, ranging from level 2 to level 5. “Normally, in most cases, you should get a bell curve” among the different levels, Elfenbein said. But during the pandemic, this changed.
“There’s a pandemic going on. We’re not seeing ankle sprains. We’re not seeing elbow sprains. We’re not seeing lacerations. We’re seeing COVID and that was it.”
Most COVID-19 patients were coded as level-4 patients, which he said was the norm across medical facilities during that time.
According to Healthcare Law Insights, the codes are imprecise, which “makes for difficult federal prosecutions.”
“There is purpose in [the] codes’ imprecision in that it allows physicians flexibility to exercise their best judgment given the multitude of factors that go into medical decision-making,” Healthcare Law Insights reported.
In the case of Elfenbein, the initial judge found a lack of evidence that Elfenbein’s level-4 coding was “objectively false.”
In an amicus brief filed on Elfenbein’s behalf in October 2024, the American Medical Association (AMA) agreed, writing, “Clinicians must be able to exercise their judgment without fear of inadvertently facing allegations of wrongdoing.”
Elfenbein said this is significant because the AMA developed the ICD-10 medical coding system that’s currently in use.
Elfenbein said:
“The American Medical Association owns that. Everybody uses ICD-10. And, by the way, there are over 69,000 possible codes in ICD-10. And the government alleged we chose the wrong code out of 69,000, five charts out of over 100,000, in the timeframe of the indictment during a global pandemic.”
Elfenbein said prosecutors couldn’t identify which code should have been assigned to those five patients instead of level 4, but that the difference between level 4 and level 3 amounts to approximately $50.
“The government’s looking to put me in jail for 50 years, destroy my life, take away my livelihood, over $250,” Elfenbein said.
“The … definitions for level-4 evaluation and management codes are inherently subjective — they depend on ‘medical decision-making’ complexity, not a stopwatch,” Moore said. “If you’re going to charge a man with fraud for using the wrong code, you should probably be able to say what the right code is. They couldn’t, wouldn’t and ultimately, didn’t.”
‘This is a case of shoot first and ask questions later’
Elfenbein told The Defender that while he does not have hard evidence proving that the DOJ’s case against him is retaliatory, the timing of his indictment shortly after his Fox News and Newsmax interviews is likely not coincidental.
“Temporally, I went on Fox News, and I got indicted almost to the day, four months later. Putting the two things together, it seems to make sense in my mind that this is what set them off,” Elfenbein said.
He suggested that the government’s case against him appeared to have been hastily constructed, further suggesting that the DOJ was targeting him on retaliatory grounds rather than on the strength of the evidence.
“They indicted me before they had the [patients’] charts. They didn’t even know what was in the charts,” Elfenbein said. Federal investigators did not speak to his business partners, who were responsible for billing, and never cross-examined a professional medical coder.
According to Elfenbein, the government’s own witnesses also undermined the DOJ’s case during the first trial. While prosecutors alleged that the five visits in question were too quick for the number of procedures that were coded, a government witness testified that “time is irrelevant for coding” and that the tests were “medically necessary.”
“This was a case where even the chief judge said, ‘This is a case of shoot first and ask questions later.’ No real investigation had been done,” Elfenbein said. “That’s pretty telling, for a federal judge to say that to the prosecution.”
Promotion of a non-vaccine treatment ‘posed a huge threat’
Elfenbein said he believes his public statements about the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies threatened the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise.
The COVID-19 shots were issued under emergency use authorization, which is customarily revoked once other effective treatments are identified and licensed.
Elfenbein said his clinics had become the largest supplier of monoclonal antibodies in the mid-Atlantic region, which “posed a huge threat.”
“It was a direct threat to the emergency use authorization of the vaccine,” he said. “I think I was the easiest fall guy … I was out all the time beating the drum, answering phone calls, talking to people, answering Facebook messages, taking questions, anything I could do to help.”
Moore agreed. “The monoclonal antibody ban was transparently about clearing the field for the vaccines. If there’s an effective early treatment available, the urgency to get jabbed drops considerably.”
By making monoclonal antibodies available despite government efforts to curtail their use, and by subsequently criticizing the government on that front, Elfenbein said he, in effect, became a whistleblower.
“I went on Fox News and I said, ‘The government doesn’t know what it’s doing, and it is gonna kill people.’ If that’s not a whistleblower, I don’t know what is.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The end of anonymity in a state-verified internet
As governments tie online speech to real-world identities under the banner of child safety, the implications extend much farther
By Onur Ozersin | The Cradle | July 8, 2026
The internet, long framed as a space of relative freedom, is entering a period of structural change driven by governments acting in parallel.
A quieter process is underway across multiple jurisdictions. Authorities are introducing identity verification requirements tied to access and participation. These measures are presented as safeguards for minors, and a number have already been written into law.
From Canberra to Washington, London to Ankara and Abu Dhabi, governments are moving to dismantle the era of anonymous internet access, embedding age restrictions and verification protocols into law and platform design in what amounts to one of the most significant shifts the digital world has seen since its inception.
A coordinated turn
The emerging model links user profiles to verified identities, going beyond routine regulation and altering how expression functions online.
As every digital post becomes indelibly linked to a real-world identity and added to a permanent database, the concept of online privacy is fundamentally inverted. Anonymity is no longer viewed as a civil right, but rather as an illicit activity.
Momentum accelerated in the UK in 2025, where more than 12,000 individuals faced detention and penalties linked to online activity.
A similar trend is unfolding in the US, where states such as Florida, Utah, and California have pushed forward with localized identity mandates. Progress on a federal equivalent, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), remains under congressional debate.
The EU has moved along a parallel track through the Digital Services Act (DSA). Presented as a regulatory framework, it has taken on an enforcement function in practice. Denmark, Greece, Italy, and Spain have been selected as early testing grounds for verification systems.
By 2026, the focus had begun to widen. The debate moved from child protection toward the regulation of political expression. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated in early May, “I want to see the real names of everyone who expresses an opinion against us online. They should not hide behind anonymous accounts.”
Turkiye introduced comparable measures in late April. Parliament approved identity checks and a social media ban for children under 15. Following publication on 1 May, platforms were given nine months to comply.
Justice Minister Akin Gurlek described the internet as “digital chaos” and said the law would apply to platforms with more than one million users. Penalties for non-compliance include aggressive enforcement actions, such as financial sanctions, bandwidth throttling, and total network blocking.
The UAE adopted its own framework in June 2026 through Cabinet Decision No. 106. It set an official age threshold for social media use in the Arab world. Platforms are required to integrate with UAE Pass or deploy biometric verification systems. A 12-month transition period has been granted, with enforcement measures including fines and possible service suspension beginning July 2027.
While neighboring Gulf states have not yet codified specific age restrictions or identity verification mandates, parallel legislative frameworks are highly anticipated. This is particularly true for countries boasting advanced digitalization infrastructures, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Regulators are also cracking down on the primary tool used to bypass these digital borders: VPN services. European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen warned that identity verification measures must not be circumvented via VPNs, aligned with existing plans in France and the UK to restrict private network routing.
This crackdown marks a dramatic ideological reversal. Where European leaders previously criticized China’s rigorous internet restrictions under the banner of free speech, they are now deploying the very same enforcement mechanisms within their own borders.
Verification as a condition of access
Several proposals would require users to confirm their identity within fixed timeframes, in some cases as short as 72 hours. Failure to comply could result in account suspension and deletion of associated data.
The choice is reduced to two options. Users either attach their digital history to their legal identity or lose access to accumulated networks and content.
This requirement effectively weaponizes your entire digital past. A political argument you had years ago, an obscure question asked on an old forum, or a reckless comment made in the heat of youth will now follow you forever, indelibly stamped onto your official legal identity.
Initially restricted to government agencies, this searchable database could eventually be accessed by insurance corporations and future employers. Cross-border data sharing will likely become standard practice during international travel applications.
A possible scenario illustrates the trajectory. A visa application could include a request for a digital profile from a country of origin. Automated systems would assess that data before any human review.
The EU has already imposed sanctions on journalists covering certain geopolitical issues, including those expressing pro-Palestine views or positions aligned with Russian policy.
The scope of regulation is not limited to public content. The EU has continued to pursue its “Chat Control” initiative, which aims to enable scanning of private communications. After a temporary exemption expired in April 2026, the Council moved on 2 July to restore monitoring provisions through 2028.
This issue has prompted intense resistance from privacy advocates and a coalition of over 500 cryptographers, who warn that requiring platforms to pre-scan message content inherently compromises end-to-end encryption, effectively transforming private messaging spaces into permanently monitored state domains.
Speech under observation
Officials maintain that these measures apply to social media. The infrastructure being built has broader potential applications.
It is only a matter of time before fingerprint, retina, and facial scans become mandatory for every single action you take online.
Once that threshold is crossed, background screening will extend far beyond traditional criminal records; instead, an individual’s digital profile will become the primary determinant of their professional career. This shift seamlessly enables AI algorithms to scan every digital trace left online, pre-emptively labeling users as “risky” or “prone to crime.”
This framework inevitably chills public discourse; criticizing state policy, exposing corruption, or merely asking a question will be permanently appended to a citizen’s digital dossier. Consequently, state authorities will no longer need to actively suppress free speech.
When the penalty for dissent risks the destruction of an individual’s lifelong professional achievements, self-censorship manifests organically.
A comparable pattern is visible offline. More than 300 international students involved in pro-Palestine protests at US universities faced visa revocations and deportation last year. If visible protest carries such outcomes, the implications of permanent digital traceability are likely to be more far-reaching.
Speaking to The Cradle, journalist and technology policy expert Fusun Nebil frames the issue in broader terms:
“Perhaps the most critical point in this debate is that the internet is no longer merely a means of communication; it has also become people’s digital memory and identity. It is not enough for governments to cite seemingly legitimate justifications such as child safety, combating disinformation, and fighting cybercrime. We must seriously discuss how a digital order that completely eliminates anonymity will exert pressure on freedom of expression, political pluralism, and the culture of social criticism in the long term.”
From open forum to managed space
The internet has long functioned as a space where citizens learn and shape ideas through open discussion, progressing from early forum sites to modern social networks. However, under a system where every word becomes an official record, the survival of satire, humor, and intellectual exchange is thrown into question.
In a framework where a joke cracked at age 22 can be held up as evidence against an individual at age 40, the internet will cease to be an environment for exploration and instead transform into a vast courtroom where any spoken word can be leveraged as an indictment.
Today, traditional media such as newspapers and television channels are frequently controlled or influenced by powerful interest groups in many countries. As a result, social media platforms have become the primary spaces where citizens can freely exchange ideas.
However, introducing mandatory identity verification will almost certainly restrict the diversity of opinions in these remaining open environments.
In June 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on regulating content distribution on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The proposals include requirements for algorithms to prioritize material from designated public service broadcasters and approved outlets.
This introduces a tiered structure within platforms. Certain sources receive visibility by design.
Exit routes and unintended outcomes
Mandating online identity verification could not only alter the nature of social media platforms, but also spark a mass exodus to the dark web. Ironically, the primary victims of this shift will be the very children these laws are intended to protect.
When governments force tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok to implement identity checks, ordinary citizens who value privacy and young people in particular may turn to the dark web. Although mainstream platforms face frequent criticism, their moderation teams and AI systems actively remove the vast majority of harmful content.
In contrast, dark web networks lack any oversight or community guidelines. When a teenager uses the Tor network to bypass restrictions, they would not just be chatting with friends; they would enter an unmonitored environment where exploitation risks are exponentially higher than on monitored platforms.
Data concentration and exposure
The accumulation of identity data introduces another layer of risk. Large databases of biometric and personal information present attractive targets for cyberattacks.
In April 2026, concerns surfaced around the EU Age Verification App shortly after its code was made public. Security researchers identified weaknesses in its structure.
Independent specialists, including cybersecurity consultant Paul Moore and French cryptographer Olivier Blazy, immediately identified critical architectural and design vulnerabilities within the framework.
Addressing EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen directly on X, Moore issued a stark warning: “Seriously @vonderleyen – this product will be the catalyst for an enormous breach at some point. It’s just a matter of time.”
Telegram founder Pavel Durov also joined the debate, claiming that these security vulnerabilities are a direct result of the system’s fundamental design rather than a simple error: “The EU age verification app was hackable by design – it trusted the device (that’s instant game over).”
A monitored horizon
Although identity verification on the internet may seem like a step taken to protect children, whether it leads to a safe harbor or a dangerous cliff depends on how it is implemented. If the solution is based solely on enacting bans and collecting ID numbers, free communication will inevitably be pushed toward dark web networks where oversight is almost impossible.
The path to protecting children is not to lock digital doors and hand the keys over to the government. Rather, it lies in ensuring that the open internet continues to provide a space where citizens can freely express ideas without the pressure of self-censorship, while making it safe through moderation, education, and transparency.
Otherwise, by the 2030s, we may find ourselves facing not a generation protected from the harmful effects of the internet, but a generation that has grown up in the lawlessness of the dark web.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Oil and the Israel Lobby
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alam offers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister
- SNSC secretary dismisses US response to Iran’s conditions as ‘inadequate’
- Sanaa says Taiz roads open, secure for residents, warns Saudi forces
- Iraqi resistance group urges Saudi leadership to admit defeat, lift Yemen siege
- Trump’s Retreat: How Al-Aqsa Flood Took Down the US Empire
- Israel’s Military Actions in Lebanon Grossly Violate International Law — Lavrov
- Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
- Leaders Condemn Ansarallah Attack on Saudi Arabia While Ignoring Illegal War Against Yemen
- Leaked: Britain’s Covert Iraqi Psyops Network
- Yemeni Armed Forces Warn Airlines Against Using Saudi Airports, Exempt Mecca and Medina
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s Destruction of Southern Lebanon Intensified After the Cease-Fire
- The Last-Minute Decision That Gave Israel Its Name
- The American Conservative: How Trump Made the World Go Nuclear
- Meet the US generals and admirals advancing Israeli policy
- Opinion: Why news organizations should boycott Israel
- The Israeli witch hunt of Sami Abu Shehadeh exposes the lie of the ‘Jewish and democratic’ state
- No state has a ‘right’ to exist – least of all Israel
- Testimonies about Gaza’s civilian death toll expose Israel’s atrocities – Daily Update
- How Israel Conquered the Latin American Right
- Agents search Rep. Omar’s Washington home in criminal probe as she vows she won’t ‘be silenced’
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
