Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Placing Missiles in Europe to Cancel Strategic Stability Talks Prerequisites – Russian MFA

Sputnik – 07.09.2026

MOSCOW – The deployment of US ground‑based US intermediate-range and shorter-range missile systems in Europe, in particular in Norway, will nullify the prerequisites for a constructive dialogue with the United States on strategic stability, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Monday.

“Steps such as the deployment of US ground‑based US intermediate-range and shorter-range missile systems in Europe, which threaten Russia, will, to put it mildly, nullify the prerequisites for a constructive conversation with the United States on strategic issues,” Zakharova said in a statement.

Russia views the deployment of systems in Norway capable of launching medium- and short-range missiles as yet another step in a series of highly destabilizing actions by NATO, the statement read.

“As part of Russia’s response measures, the locations where US systems are deployed and controlled, as well as the infrastructure supporting them, are becoming the focus of special attention from Russia’s strategic deterrence forces, which includes planning the combat use of the relevant strike assets in the event of an armed conflict,” Zakharova said.

The ministry added that favorable conditions for a substantive and productive dialogue with the United States on strategic stability had not been established now.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on US Placing Missiles in Europe to Cancel Strategic Stability Talks Prerequisites – Russian MFA

Analysts warn of ‘colonization’ as US ‘saturates’ Australia with 110 bases

Press TV – September 7, 2026

The United States reportedly wields control over, or has access to, 110 military facilities belonging to Australia — a presence so extensive that analysts now describe it as a “saturation” and even a “colonization” of the Australian continent.

The Guardian, citing information gathered from the database of the Nautilus Institute, reported that the US military or US defense corporations have access to more than half of Australia’s military facilities.

According to the database, the United States controls 17 military facilities on mainland Australia, has access to 75 more Australian-run military installations elsewhere, while US defense corporations have access to an additional 18 facilities.

“This is not a matter of penetration, it’s a matter of saturation,” said Prof Richard Tanter, the database’s author.

“Over half of the defense facilities that we have looked at have some level of American access: that means American personnel, it means American corporations, some of the biggest armaments companies in the world.”

The US military in Australia engages in gathering intelligence, accessing satellite data for targeting information, and communications intercepts.

Other military activities include training for some 2,500 marines on dry-season rotation in the Northern Territory, as well as the pre-positioning of warfighting assets, weapons, munitions, and fuel, stored in case of a regional war in the Pacific.

The US now practically owns Australia’s human, soil, and mineral resources through its control of the nation’s military, according to critics.

The US military presence will continue to expand. From next year up to 1,200 uniformed military personnel will operate from the HMAS Stirling submarine base just off Fremantle.

The government insists that technically this will not be a US base — rather a “rotation” — but there is little contestation of its actual implication.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, described by former defense minister Christopher Pyne as “a lot more than the submarine procurement,” effectively establishes a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean.

“For the Americans, being able to have a submarine base in the Indian Ocean is a massive strategic advantage,” Pyne told a public inquiry.

Dr Vince Scappatura, author of The US Lobby and Australian Defense Policy, described US base access across Australia as a kind of “second wave of colonization.”

“Today we are shaping up to be the ‘tip of the spear’ for US power projection into the region — that’s what the sprawling US base access represents,” he said.

“Each one of those dots on the map represents a point of leverage Washington has over Canberra when it comes to matters of defense and foreign policy.”

Scappatura noted that the phrase “empire by invitation” was originally coined to describe US hegemony over western Europe “but it is applicable equally here. I sometimes describe it as ‘voluntary subordination’.”

The United States has been escalating militarization in the Pacific by resetting ties with regional countries in an attempt to form a coalition against China.

Beyond Australia, US bases and military access points are expanding across Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and other regional nations, effectively drawing them into Washington’s orbit.

Critics say this is a desperate bid by Washington to arrest the rise of China, with Australia and other regional countries being used as forward operating bases in what could become a larger confrontation.

Tanter says that the acceptance of the US military presence has become so ingrained within the government and defense that unwinding Australia’s enmeshment within the world’s most powerful military is increasingly difficult.

“This is a massive institutional failure in Australia, a kind of learned incapacity at a political, parliamentary and bureaucratic level,” he said. “We’ve learned how not to ask those questions.”

Dr Emma Shortis, director of international and security affairs at the Australia Institute, says Australia’s increasing integration with the US military has resulted in “an accelerating erosion of Australia’s independent, sovereign, decision-making power.”

“Instead of having the option of saying ‘no’ to involvement in United States wars, involvement becomes the default position,” she said.

She cited the March attack by a US nuclear-powered submarine on an Iranian frigate, sinking it and killing more than 100 people. Three Australian naval personnel were onboard, part of the submarine’s crew: the US did not forewarn Australia of the attack.

“Australia might maintain the pretense of sovereign decision-making power, but that’s not the reality,” Shortis said.

Dr Albert Palazzo, an adjunct professor at the University of New South Wales Canberra and formerly the director of war studies for the Australian army, told the Guardian the US military’s accelerating buildup carries danger for Australian security.

“The Australian government seems to be waltzing its way into a war between the United States and China, by allowing this country to become an outpost or bastion of the US military, and as a platform from which they will launch military force against China,” he said.

Australians’ faith in the US is fragile and fracturing. A Lowy Institute poll showed Australians’ “trust in the United States to act responsibly in the world” has fallen to 31%, the lowest level in its polling history.

Just 21% of Australians have confidence in Donald Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, the lowest level of confidence in a US president yet.

More than twice as many Australians (59%) now believe Australia’s interests are best served by a more independent foreign policy rather than a closer alliance with the US (23%). Just 13% of Australians believe the US is a “very reliable” security ally.

This represents, Shortis says, a “seismic shift” in Australia’s perception of its once-great and powerful friend.

“After following the US into nearly every war since World War II, Australians have had enough. They see tangible risks in being so close to President Trump’s bleak and violent version of America.”

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Analysts warn of ‘colonization’ as US ‘saturates’ Australia with 110 bases

Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats | Fault Lines Documentary

Since September 2025, the US military has carried out more than 60 strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing more than 220 people.

In a military campaign called Operation Southern Spear, President Donald Trump’s administration has claimed to wage war against “narcoterrorism”. Yet the government has released little information about who was killed, the evidence against them or how targets were selected.

In Killing at Sea, Fault Lines investigates the administration’s claims about Operation Southern Spear by uncovering the stories of those targeted and the evidence used to justify lethal military force.

Through the stories of families left searching for answers, alongside witness accounts, physical evidence and interviews with legal experts, Fault Lines asks whether the strikes are lawful, whether they have disrupted the drug trade and what accountability exists for those killed.

From fishing communities in the Caribbean to Washington, DC, Killing at Sea examines a military campaign conducted largely beyond public view—and asks who is being killed in the US’s new war at sea, and why.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Video, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats | Fault Lines Documentary

Babies Whose Mothers Drank Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy Scored Lower in Problem-Solving

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 3, 2026

Babies whose mothers drank fluoridated water during pregnancy at and slightly below concentrations currently recommended by U.S. public health agencies scored lower on tests that measure fluid cognition — the ability to think logically and solve problems in new situations.

Fluid cognition is considered the “cornerstone of human cognition, both during development and in adulthood.”

A new study led by Columbia University researchers found that prenatal fluoride exposure resulted in reduced fluid cognition at levels as low as 0.675 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

That’s slightly below the U.S. Public Health Service’s recommended concentration of 0.7 mg/L for fluoridated drinking water and far below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L and the World Health Organization’s guideline of 1.5 mg/L, according to the study.

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and accepted for publication in the American Journal of Epidemiology, analyzed outcomes among 2,514 children born between 2006 and 2019 at 17 sites spanning 23 U.S. states that are part of the Environmental influences on Child Health Cohort (ECHO).

The authors concluded that more research is needed to identify the risky prenatal, postnatal and childhood window when fluoride exposure can harm cognitive development.

Higher fluoride linked to lower fluid cognition

To estimate prenatal water fluoride exposure, the researchers linked publicly available drinking water fluoride measurements to residential address information collected during pregnancy. The study focused only on fluoride from drinking water and did not account for any other sources.

The researchers then compared estimated fluoride intake with children’s cognitive abilities, evaluated using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.

Researchers separately examined “fluid cognition,” which included measures of cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, attention and memory, and “crystallized cognition,” assessed through a vocabulary test.

Crystallized cognition is “the breadth and depth of knowledge, vocabulary, and verbal skill a person has acquired through education, experience, and cultural exposure — what has been learned and can be retrieved and applied later.”

The children whose mothers were exposed to higher fluoride levels during pregnancy tended to score lower on the fluid cognition tests.

They found children’s cognition was affected when mothers were exposed to water fluoride levels at and above 0.675 mg/L, or 675 micrograms per liter. That’s below the federally recommended level for water fluoridation.

They also found that every 500 microgram-per-liter increase in water fluoride was linked to an average 3.36-point drop in IQ.

The outcomes were substantially worse among children whose cognitive abilities were assessed before age 7. Their IQ scores dropped up to 13.5 points for the same increase in water fluoride content.

The researchers cautioned, however, that the apparent difference by age requires further study.

“This study adds to a large body of work that looks at how early exposure to environmental contaminants may be associated with the development of the thinking and learning processes that are important for children’s developmental outcomes,” co-senior author Amy Margolis, Ph.D., of The Ohio State University College of Medicine said in a Columbia University press release about the study.

“Continuing to study fluoride and other exposures will be integral in best supporting children’s environmental health and well-being.”

Malin and Thiessen both noted that a limitation of the study was that they didn’t measure individual fluoride intake. Because intake can vary across individuals, failure to measure individual exposure can lead to exposure misclassification.

“Despite this, the authors still observed quite sizable associations between prenatal public water fluoride exposure and child fluid cognition, particularly for children younger than 7,” Malin said.

“Nevertheless, true associations between prenatal fluoride exposure and child cognition may in fact be larger than what this study was able to detect,” she added. “Future individual-level research will be needed to further investigate that question.”

Findings add to evidence in contested court ruling

Water fluoridation in the U.S. has been a political flashpoint since a landmark 2024 federal court ruling concluded that current levels of fluoride added to water at 0.7 mg/L posed a risk to children’s health. The ruling directed the EPA to regulate the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The ruling was largely based on the federal National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) six-year assessment of all existing literature on fluoride and neurotoxicity, along with testimony from leading experts at top universities across the world who study the issue.

The NTP concluded that water fluoridation at 1.5 mg/L was linked to lower IQ in children. It also found that people exposed to water fluoridation below 1.5 mg/L could have high fluoride levels in their systems, in part because people can be exposed to fluoride from other sources and/or may drink different amounts of water.

The NTP researchers said their findings about water fluoridation and neurotoxicity were based on studies of water fluoridation at or above current U.S. fluoridation levels.

The groups that sued the EPA also argued that EPA regulations for other toxic chemicals don’t allow exposure at known toxicity levels. For other chemicals, exposure is allowed only at levels that are at least 10 times [lower than] the known toxic exposure level to ensure safety.

An appeals court later overturned the fluoride verdict on a procedural issue, but the court did not disagree with the lower court ruling that fluoridation at current levels poses an unreasonable risk to human health.

The American Dental Association, mainstream media and others have attempted to publicly discount the NTP’s findings, arguing that its data were weak at current levels, or that studies showing the neurological effects of water fluoridation happened in other countries that weren’t similar to the U.S.

The new Columbia University study — conducted in the U.S. at current fluoridation levels — confirmed the NTP’s conclusions and offered findings in line with other recent studies in the U.S.

Ashley Malin, Ph.D., assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, and lead author of a U.S. study that linked fluoride exposure during pregnancy to neurobehavioral problems in children, told The Defender that the Columbia University study is “significant” because it includes a relatively recent cohort of children from multiple U.S. states.

She said the findings were consistent with other major cohort studies in Mexico and Canada that observed an inverse association between early life fluoride exposure and non-verbal IQ.

Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., who co-authored the 2006 National Research Council study on fluoride toxicity, also said the study was consistent with many recent findings.

“Importantly, they see an adverse effect at lower levels of water fluoride than many previous studies have used, and these are U.S. children,” she said.

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.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Comments Off on Babies Whose Mothers Drank Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy Scored Lower in Problem-Solving

Vaccination Data on Amish Children Screened for 2010 Autism Study Was Never Made Public

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 2, 2026

Controversy is swirling around a 2010 study on autism rates among the Amish, after President Donald Trump on Monday posted a graphic citing the study.

Trump’s post on Truth Social claimed, “No published case has explicitly documented an unvaccinated Amish child with autism.”

The social media post cited a study, conducted in 2008 and 2009 by researchers who screened 1,899 Amish children in Indiana and Ohio for autism. The researchers confirmed seven cases of autism among the children.

The study concluded that among the Amish children in the study, the autism rate was roughly 1 in 271 — far lower than the national rate, which at the time was estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as 1 in 91.

According to Trump’s post, the study authors collected vaccination histories for the children but “did not report any confirmed case” of autism as “completely unvaccinated.”

The post drew a mix of cheers and fact checks, according to health writer Sayer Ji.

Ji called Trump’s post “factually imperfect” but “genuinely important.”

The post contained factual inaccuracies — for instance, it stated that the Amish have been around for 330 years. However, although the Amish broke away from the Mennonites 333 years ago in 1693, Amish settlements in the U.S. didn’t begin until the 1720s.

Trump’s post also drew attention to the verifiable fact that the Amish tend to have lower vaccination rates and lower autism rates, compared to the mainstream.

Ji praised the president for highlighting the 2010 study. “Whatever else you think of the man, he [Trump] pointed at the study,” Ji wrote.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender she was pleased that Trump highlighted the relative absence of autism among the Amish, who typically have lower vaccination rates than mainstream communities.

“It’s high time we start dealing with reality — the current vaccine schedule causes brain injury called autism. Let’s be humble enough to learn from the Amish,” Holland said.

What did the 2010 Amish autism study show?

Trump’s post cites a 2010 study conducted by human genomics researchers from the University of Miami and Vanderbilt University, according to a conference abstract about the study.

However, contrary to Trump’s post, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The study’s abstract, dated May 22, 2010, appeared on the website for the International Meeting for Autism Research, a research gathering held by the International Society of Autism Research.

The study authors appeared to have presented the study at the May 2010 meeting. There is no online record of the study’s full report.

The abstract’s methods section states that the researchers collected the children’s vaccination data. However, the results section doesn’t state whether the seven Amish children in the study who were identified as having autism were vaccinated or unvaccinated.

The abstract states:

“Preliminary data have identified the presence of ASD [autism spectrum disorder] in the Amish community at a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children using standard ASD screening and diagnostic tools although some modifications may be in order.”

The authors wrote that “further studies are underway” to address the cultural norms and customs that may affect how parents talk about their children’s behavior when interviewed by researchers.

It is unclear if the study authors looked at whether the seven children with autism had been vaccinated.

The study’s lead author, listed as J. L. Robinson, did not respond to The Defender when asked if the researchers ever ran a vaccination-stratified analysis of the seven confirmed autism cases, and why the researchers never published the study.

The Defender asked Margaret Pericak-Vance, Ph.D., director of the John P. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics at the University of Miami and one of the study’s authors, the same questions. However, the inquiry was directed to the university’s public relations director, who did not respond by deadline.

Ji searched online public records to see if the study authors ever spoke again publicly about the study or submitted it for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but found nothing.

That is significant, Ji told The Defender. “I searched for and could not find any public statement by any of the six authors, in sixteen years, on why the paper never appeared or what became of the data. That absence is the finding.”

Ji said he isn’t accusing the study authors of intentionally burying their data on the Amish children’s vaccination histories. “I am not alleging that any of the six destroyed data or acted in bad faith — I have no evidence of that.”

But their data were effectively “buried,” in that the data were never published and never appeared in a future study.

Ji acknowledged that even if the study had explicitly linked all seven autism cases to not vaccinating, the study wouldn’t prove that unvaccinated children do not get autism, because seven is too small a number to power a statistical model.

But the data would still be helpful because they “would fill a hole in the record and tell us whether the screening infrastructure can be rebuilt at scale,” he said. “A statistician could do it in weeks if the files exist.”

The study authors did not respond when The Defender asked if they still had the original research files for the study.

Given that the study appeared to use federally funded research dollars, according to the abstract, the public deserves to know what happened to the files, Ji said.

Trump focused on uncovering autism-vaccine link

Trump’s post referencing the 2010 study comes amid a roiling debate about vaccines and autism. In May, Trump pressed U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to do more to investigate a possible link between vaccines and autism, according to a July 27 Wall Street Journal report.

Last month, Trump signed an executive order calling for sweeping changes to U.S. vaccine policy, including reducing the number of diseases for which kids receive routine childhood vaccines from 18 to 11.

According to The Associated Press, Trump is “fixated on connecting autism to vaccines.”

During a Sept. 22, 2025 press conference, Trump said, “There are certain groups of people that don’t take vaccines and don’t take any pills that have no autism. … The Amish, as an example, they have essentially no autism.”

According to Ji, the 2010 Amish study does not prove that vaccines cause autism.

However, the story of what happened to the 2010 study reveals that when data are collected that could potentially contribute to answering the question of whether vaccines cause autism, that data “doesn’t become available,” Ji said.

In Ji’s view, studies looking at Amish autism rates should examine many factors, including vaccination status, exposure to glyphosate, acetaminophen, ultrasound, diet, endogamy and access to healthcare.

The full results should be made public, regardless of what the studies find. “That isn’t anti-vaccine. It’s science.”

The connection between lower vaccination and autism rates among the Amish was something that investigative journalist Dan Olmsted spent years documenting.

Olmsted, founder of Age of Autism, authored “Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-Made Epidemic” (2011) and “Denial: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future” (2017) before he passed away in early 2017.

Where did Trump get the graphic he posted?

The Amish continue to be central to ongoing national debate on vaccines. In New York, Amish are threatening to leave the state due to the state’s school-based vaccine mandate, according to an Aug. 26 New York Post report.

Pennsylvania, which is home to the largest Amish population in the U.S., has been making headlines for its current measles outbreak and ongoing investigation of measles-related deaths.

Steve Kirsch created the graphic that Trump posted to social media. On Aug. 14, Kirsch posted the graphic on X with the statement, “Baffling, isn’t it? Autism is only found in vaccinated Amish kids. I wonder why?”

Kirsch told The Defender he created the graphic using ChatGPT.

He instructed ChatGPT to create a graphic based on the 2010 study and based on his understanding that there is no evidence that an unvaccinated Amish child has ever been diagnosed with autism.

“Nobody has ever heard of an unvaccinated Amish child with autism,” Kirsch told The Defender.

Kirsch said he referred to the study as “published” in the graphic because the International Society of Autism Research posted the study’s conference abstract online. He acknowledged that the study itself was never published.

The White House did not respond to our comment request by the deadline.

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.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Comments Off on Vaccination Data on Amish Children Screened for 2010 Autism Study Was Never Made Public

CNAS Wonk Proposes Bombing China’s Artificial Intelligence

Critics argue that an attack on China has the potential to start a nuclear war

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | September 6, 2026

Jacob Stokes, a former White House official, has suggested taking military action against China to prevent it from winning the race for AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. AGI is a hypothetical AI system that could learn, reason, adapt, and solve problems across a broad range of intellectual tasks at roughly human or greater capability.

Stokes served on the White House national-security staff under then–Vice President Joe Biden during the Obama administration. He is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the CNAS.

Center for a New American Security, established in 2007 by Michèle Flournoy, is associated with the Democratic Party. Flournoy held the position of deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy during President Bill Clinton’s administration and served as under secretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama.

Previously, CNAS was led by CEO Victoria Nuland, who acted as undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2021 to 2024 within the Biden administration’s State Department. According to the Washington Post, CNAS is regarded as Washington’s primary think tank on military matters.

In a CNAS report titled Superpowers and AGI, Stokes argued that Washington should consider extreme scenarios in which China might achieve AGI first, including diplomatic pressure, espionage, cyber operations, sabotage, and military action against data centers.

On September 3, during an online event, Stokes stated that multiple US agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, should evaluate the intelligence required to substantiate such actions, according to the South China Morning Post.

Stokes and other analysts believe conventional bombs may be used to destroy the physical hardware China needs to train future AI models. It is speculated that the destruction of China’s AGI infrastructure would delay Chinese development by a few years, thus giving the US an advantage.

Although China is very advanced in frontier AI, it does not appear to possess AGI. The best current assessment is that China is probably slightly behind the United States in top-end model capability, while matching or exceeding it in some areas, including efficiency, deployment, open models, robotics, and industrial integration.

Critics argue that an attack on China has the potential to start a nuclear war between the two superpowers. William Hartung of the Project on Government Oversight characterized an attack on Chinese data centers as “the height of recklessness.” He warned that it could trigger a war with “tragic consequences for all concerned.”

Others question whether bombing data centers would actually halt Chinese AI development. China’s AI ecosystem is spread across numerous companies, universities, government labs, cloud providers, chip facilities, and research teams.

Hu Xijin, the former editor-in-chief of China’s state-backed Global Times, warned that if the United States attacked Chinese data centers, Chinese retaliation would not be limited to US targets in the Asia-Pacific region. Instead, it could include missile strikes on the US mainland. A Global Times editorial described the proposal as a “dangerous delusion” and argued that treating civilian data centers as military targets was “indistinguishable from terrorism.”

There is no indication that the Trump administration has officially supported, accepted, or directly addressed Jacob Stokes’ suggestion to prepare for the dismantling of Chinese AGI infrastructure. As of September 6, 2026, reports suggest that neither the Department of Defense nor the NSA has provided an official response to the proposal.

Nonetheless, the administration has taken the extensive U.S.-China AI rivalry very seriously. Its approach has focused on ensuring American supremacy in AI, military integration, intelligence gathering, cyber defense, technology regulations, and diplomatic efforts – not openly on preemptive strikes or sabotaging Chinese data facilities.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on CNAS Wonk Proposes Bombing China’s Artificial Intelligence

Israel’s Game

Anti-Zionist activists protest on 2nd Avenue outside the Israeli Consulate General in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, U.S. on August 21, 2026. [Selçuk Acar – Anadolu Agency]
By Dr Hassaan Bokhari | MEMO | September 6, 2026

A few days ago, a very interesting article appeared in the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post. It was written by AJ Jaff, whose profile describes him as “a recognised expert in international security, crisis management, and geopolitical risk”. The “expert” began the article by acknowledging that the 6-month-long air war on Iran has failed to defeat Iran. Then, he provided some “out-of-the-box” ideas for the US to consider if it wants to “achieve its objectives” and win the war. According to him, the war will only be won when Iran’s institutional coherence is broken, resulting in its Balkanization.

I will discuss Mr Jaff’s “out of the box” ideas in a bit, but first, I want to analyse the “expert” himself a little. Two things quickly popped up. First is how he began his article. The first sentence is: “The Pentagon reportedly asked outside analysts this month for creative ideas on Iran.” The hyperlink in this sentence redirects the reader to another article in The Jerusalem Post that cites a CNN report saying that the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, has been privately looking for an off-ramp in the Iran War. How quaint! While the Pentagon is asking for ideas to wrap up the war, Mr Jaff, the expert, stepped up with ideas to escalate the war! It appears that Mr Jaff (and the Zionists) have very different ideas and even objectives than US Generals about the same war. No wonder Pete Hegseth (a committed Zionist) has been firing so many of them!

Secondly, one is amused to see that in March, 10 days after the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, the same Mr Jaff was declaring a resounding victory and claiming that “the data tells a decisive and irreversible story” and “Iran’s missile fire rate has collapsed by 92 percent”! After reading that article now, most readers might laugh heartily and dismiss Mr Jaff, the “expert,” as an idiot. However, that would be an incorrect assessment. On the same day as Mr Jaff’s gaffe’s appearance in The Jerusalem Post, an article of mine elucidated the Israeli strategy as one giant bluff whose aim was to lure the USA into a destructive war in the Middle East by plunging it into a sunk cost fallacy. The Israeli plan was to lure the USA in with the dreams of an easy victory like the First Gulf War or the Maduro kidnapping, but it knew all along that those dreams would prove to be hollow, and their sole purpose was to bring the USA into the war. Then, in the next phase, with the dreams of victory proving illusory, the USA was to be baited with the sunk cost fallacy trap so that it would blunder into further escalation in pursuit of Israeli objectives. Mr Jaff’s seemingly absurd somersaults follow this pattern perfectly.

Now let’s turn our attention to Mr. Jaff’s “expert recommendations”. There are three of them:

  • The USA should “recognize the sovereign independence of the Iranian Kurdistan, Ahwaz, and Baluchistan people”.
  • To raise the one million troops required for a victorious ground invasion of Iran, the USA should launch an enlistment scheme based on debt forgiveness (estimated at 40,000 to 1,00,000 US Dollars per person) for 24-36 months of service per person.
  • The US should strike a deal with China that would involve softening the US stance on Taiwan and ensuring China that even after Iran’s destruction, China would continue to receive an uninterrupted supply of Iranian oil in exchange for China’s abandonment of Iran.

Before analysing these ideas, one must first take a moment to marvel at the arrogance and ignorance of the Zionists.

The Zionists have played the victim and the superior/invincible race roles simultaneously in a way that lends itself to a diagnosis of severe dissociative disorder.

This pathological psyche has led them to the delusion that the foremost purpose of the world and everything in it is to accommodate their ambitions. As I have argued elsewhere, this psyche is leading them to their self-created and inevitable destruction as well.

Now, let’s take these ideas one by one. The first idea is simply advocating the balkanization of Iran (just the newest version of the Yinon Plan). The implications are very interesting, though. By supporting Kurdish and Baloch (not Baluchi as written by Mr. Jaff, a mistake that only lays bare how little he knows about Balochistan!) separatism, the US could kill three birds with one stone in the service of Israel. Kurdish and Baloch separatism are grave threats to the integrity of Turkiye and Pakistan, respectively. Very cleverly, the Zionist Mr Jaff is pointing the way for the next wars to be launched by the USA in Israel’s service. The Zionists know that Iran’s balkanization wouldn’t ensure Israel’s survival. They are aiming at the complete destruction of the whole region stretching from Morocco to Pakistan, an Israeli goal correctly identified by the Pakistani liberal thinker Eqbal Ahmed more than 40 years ago!

The second idea is about finding the meat for the meat grinder of forever wars envisioned by Israel. With antipathy toward Israel consistently on the rise in the USA, how can American youth be convinced to become cannon fodder in the Wars of Israeli Ambitions? The answer, according to Mr. Jaff, lies in luring them with the promise of debt forgiveness. Most young Americans are riddled with debt in the exploitative capitalistic financial system (run by whom?) of the USA. Mr Jaff wants their debts written off in return for their blood, sweat, and tears spilled on the battlefields of the Middle East. However, the question arises: who will pay the bill of “debt forgiveness” for this indentured slave army? Will the big capitalists pay? Of course not. The state will pay.

In other words, the US taxpayers will pay billions of dollars so that their sons and daughters can be killed or crippled far from home in wars that have nothing to do with the American people’s welfare.

The third idea is the most “brilliant” one. It’s also the one that should ring alarm bells for even the most obtuse section of people in the USA. Mr. Jaff proposes to bribe China with oil and concessions on Taiwan to abandon Iran. It hasn’t occurred to him that for men like General Dan Caine, China represents a much bigger threat to the USA than Iran! It also peddles the fallacy that Iran is another Venezuela! Such a bizarre, arrogantly ignorant notion can only come from Zionists! In his obsession with what the genocide-dependent state of Israel needs to survive, Mr Jaff has ignored the basic fact of geography that Iran lies closer to China than Venezuela is to the USA! He has also conveniently failed to specify what concessions the USA should make on Taiwan. Unfortunately for Mr Jaff and the Zionists, the Chinese leaders (unlike many in the USA) don’t prioritise Israeli interests over their own country’s.

As I am engaged in analyzing Israel’s “game plan”, one other important factor must be mentioned: Gaza. In the last few days, clear statements have come from Israeli ministers showing their intention to depopulate Gaza completely. Israel’s ultimate goal has always been to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that started with the Nakba in 1948. Since the start of the Gaza blockade in 2007, Israel had been following a policy of making Gaza uninhabitable while concurrently using it as a weapons testing laboratory through periodic aggressions/wars. This policy of slow genocide was abandoned after the 7 October attacks. The goal then became to “clear” Gaza through a “fast genocide” within a few months. However, unexpectedly stubborn Palestinian resistance coupled with the categorical refusal of regional countries (especially Egypt) to accept Palestinian refugees has so far prevented this. The recent pressure from Israel on the USA to give it a green light for forcible expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza shows that Israel hasn’t lost sight of its genocidal goals in Palestine for one minute, even during the Iran War. If Palestinian refugees are forced into Egypt, it will provide an added bonus for Israel by destabilising Egypt.

A summary of the comprehensive Israeli strategic plan is as follows: Israel wants a massive US ground invasion of Iran with more than a million soldiers to destroy the Iranian State and balkanize the country with the help of Kurdish and Baloch separatists. This will, in turn, bring the “Grand Israeli War” to its next phase: the destruction of Turkiye and Pakistan. The latter will be denuclearized after internal instability brought upon by economic, political, and military crises resulting in an implosion of the State, leaving Israel’s ally India as the sole power in the subcontinent. Simultaneously, Israel plans to depopulate Gaza and South Lebanon while destabilising both Syria and Egypt to an extent that new civil wars erupt there. To achieve these lofty aims, Israel wants the USA to put its strategic tussle with China on hold and offer significant concessions on vital issues like Taiwan to keep China neutral. This will free up the USA to deploy its full military might in fighting Israel’s wars and divert limited but critical military resources in bulk to the Middle East from the Pacific. With the whole of the Middle East in ashes, Israel can replace the USA as Saudi Arabia’s “security guarantor”, gain control over all 3 Muslim Holy Mosques (in Makkah, Medina, and Al-Quds) to be used as blackmail against any future attempt by Muslims to confront it, and create a Greater Israel that is not dependent on US aid. Afterwards, Israel can easily discard the USA in favor of a modus vivendi with the new global hegemon (China) as the former’s power wanes through wars and strategic overextension.

This Israeli “game plan” is clearly fantastic, unrealistic, and wildly overambitious. However, like the Nazis, Israelis see themselves as an embattled and desperate “superior race” that has to risk it all on a grand throw of the dice. In its post-7 October psychosis, Israel has lost whatever rationality or sense of proportion it previously possessed. Like Hitler, Israel’s leaders fail to see their predicament: they might win some victories in this war, but each victory will open up new threats, which will result in fatigue as the costs of war mount and geographic and demographic factors overstretch both Israel and the USA. In his seminal work, “Israeli Exceptionalism – The Destabilising Logic of Zionism”, Professor Shahid Alam explained this brilliantly: “The tragedy of Israel is not fortuitous. Driven by history, chance, and cunning, the Zionists wedged themselves between two historical adversaries, the West and Islam, and by harnessing the strength of the first against the second, they have produced a conflict that can only grow deeper over time. In this conflict, Israel’s triumphs are temporary, are indeed illusory, since they evoke a deeper, wider response from the societies that suffer the devastation of its triumphs. In the long run, in the time scale of history, by relentlessly pressing its advantages, Israel only ensures that its adversaries will slowly build the defenses that will eventually rise to match Israel’s military might and its expansionist ambitions.”

Blinded by the imperatives of genocidal Zionist ideology, it would be foolish to expect the recognition of this reality from the Israelis.

However, the USA and the Muslim World urgently need to recognize “Israel’s Game” to minimize the damage to be suffered by them. Had Hitler been stopped at Munich, the Second World War might never have happened. Had Israel’s genocide in Gaza been stopped in November 2023, we wouldn’t be seeing the Iran War and the Hormuz crisis today. If Israel isn’t stopped now, we will see not just Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon, but Turkiye, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, and the Gulf countries engulfed in flames of war as well.

As Israel plans to fight this war to the last US soldier, it would behoove the USA to realize that playing Israel’s game will result in polarization and decimation of American society (just like the Vietnam War put an end to Lyndon Johnson’s vision of “Great Society), the loss of its military dominance in the Pacific, and the loss of its global economic primacy. Today, it is imperative that all of the Muslim World in general and Turkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in particular start squarely backing Iran in thwarting external aggression. The recent Mecca Pact between Pakistan, Turkiye, and Saudi Arabia can only be meaningful if it clearly declares Israel as the greatest threat to peace and operationalizes the military and economic power of these countries to combat Israeli aggression in Gaza, West Bank/East Jerusalem, Lebanon, and Iran. Only through the defeat of Israel’s genocidal state and the birth of an independent Palestinian State can peace and security be ensured for the Middle East. If these countries present a united front against Israeli aggression, not only will they be backed by the likes of China and Russia, but they will also compel the USA to recognize Israel for the dangerous strategic liability it is. “America Firsters” will do well to remember Nietzsche’s saying: “The most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do.”

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s Game

Is America preparing a tactical nuke for Iran?

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 6, 2026

The escalation trap is getting worse for Trump and his cabal of sycophants, as what was once a discussion which was linked to existentialism – the nuclear option – is now being dialled down to any kind of military option. Just a bigger bomb. The more Trump loses, the more Iran hits U.S. assets and allies in the Middle East, the longer the straits remain closed, and the higher gasoline and diesel costs reach in the U.S. – the more the idea of a ‘tactical’ nuke dropped on Iran becomes normal and even preferred.

But Trump is also getting madder. He is literally losing his mind, and his condition has worsened in his second term in office to the point where he is losing touch with any kind of reality. Before February 28th, the U.S. economy was not in bad shape. A lot of fundamentals were holding out. But now everything is spiralling out of control, and quite apart from blue-collar workers being hit with gas pump prices being well above $4, now diesel is being hiked – which only means that the cost of food, among other goods, is going to rise significantly, as trucking firms pass on the bill to producers, who pass it on to the consumer.

And as things start to get out of control, take a cursory glance at who is running Trump and who stands to gain if a nuclear bomb were used. It’s the same people who walked away from 9/11 laughing until their sides hurt. Israel. The Zionists are now pushing for the tactical strike option, as any escalation in the region – no matter who gets killed or whose country gets wiped out even of water – is not their worry or concern. These days, Netanyahu’s coterie can argue even more that Iran is probably making a nuclear bomb, as the one institution that Trump could turn to – the IAEA – can’t enter Iran and do its inspections. And so the default conclusion is that the U.S. president is going to be bullied again into making a cataclysmic error of judgment in hitting Iran.

The Zionists have been busy on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, it’s hard not to see how their money is now reaching Nigel Farage’s far-right party, which has just been hit by another dodgy funding scandal – presenting the leader of the party as bereft of any political morals of any creed in preference for filling his pockets with dirty cash. The Zionists control UK media, and it’s interesting to see how Farage gets a pretty easy time despite the graft scandals burying him. In the U.S., it’s a similar story. For a while now, J.D. Vance has been quite critical of how Zionists are shaping U.S. politics both internationally and even domestically, and has always been quite vague about how the U.S. should move forward in Iran. But now those who have crossed a threshold and are in the pockets of Israel’s lobby are going for him.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley recently accused him of not taking a clear stance on Israel – slamming him for trying to “be both.”

“Right is right. Wrong is wrong. In life, you must choose a side. You are either with the Tucker Carlson wing of the country or you are with the pro-Israel wing of the country,” she wrote on social media. “You can’t be both.”

Haley, a former GOP presidential candidate who isn’t overburdened with a high IQ, couldn’t even hide who was directing her and even giving her reference material to attack Vance – leading some to wonder if Israel’s lobby just writes her social media posts.

She continued her post with a quote from Nobel Prize-winning writer and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who said in his 1986 acceptance speech: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”

Meanwhile, America’s trust around the world seems to have been eroded to almost nothing. Recently, the Netherlands just pulled out its gold reserves it used to keep in the U.S. The move followed Germany a few weeks ago, which did the same. EU leaders just don’t trust Trump and can see the de-dollarisation trend gaining ground while U.S. debt continues to mount. Trump can’t do anything, of course, as his immature ideas about governance have produced a series of policies which haven’t served the country’s interests but merely backfired – reminding many that he doesn’t have one or two failed businesses under his belt like many successful entrepreneurs, but scores, which would suggest that he doesn’t really understand business at all. A nuke, he might believe, would be a reset in the Middle East and perhaps a huge distraction away from terrible numbers back home. But the precedent it would set to Russia and China would only make Iran an even greater winner than it already is in the region. Trump simply has no idea what he is doing – and all the people who could advise him have been fired.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Is America preparing a tactical nuke for Iran?

“We Are Being Drawn Into a War We Don’t Want to Fight”: What Jordan’s Alliance with Washington Is Costing It

By Muhammad Hamid ad-Din – New Eastern Outlook – September 6, 2026

The growing public discontent with the presence of American troops in Jordan, fueled by the regional conflict and Iran’s strategy, is putting the country’s government in a serious crisis of trust, forcing the authorities to choose between a strategic alliance with the United States and the internal stability of the state.

Some 4,000 U.S. troops, bases used for strikes against Iran, Iranian missiles crossing Jordanian skies, and American soldiers killed on Jordanian ground—all raise an increasingly urgent question: has the strategic alliance with Washington become a threat to the very existence of the country?

A Letter That Could Not Be Ignored

More than 200 Jordanian politicians, cultural figures, tribal leaders, and retired military officers did something extremely rare in Jordan—they publicly challenged their own government. In an open letter to the authorities, they demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, the cancellation or revision of the security agreement with the United States, and its submission to parliament for review.

“We affirm that their presence exposes Jordan to security, political, and economic risks that serve no national interest, and increases the likelihood of our country being dragged into a regional conflict in which it has no part,” the appeal stated.

The initiative was led by former minister and lawmaker Amjad Khazza al-Majali. Among the signatories were former secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front, Salem al-Falahat; 90‑year‑old political activist Sufyan al-Tell; retired military figures including Ali al-Habashneh; and former secretary-general of the Jordanian Communist Party, Saud Kbeilat.

The diversity of the signatories—from leftists to Islamists, from tribal chiefs to secular intellectuals—prevented the authorities from dismissing the letter as the work of a single political faction. But it would be an exaggeration to claim that it reflects the views of all Jordanians; on such sensitive matters, the kingdom simply does not conduct opinion polls, and open disagreement with the authorities has always been a risky undertaking here.

When an Ally Becomes a Target

Jordan has long been one of the United States’ main military partners in the Middle East. Some 4,000 American troops are stationed on its territory. However, the war between the U.S. and Iran, which resumed after the collapse of the June ceasefire, has turned that presence from an abstract diplomatic arrangement into a tangible threat.

Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israeli or American facilities regularly cross Jordanian airspace. Some strikes hit installations used by U.S. forces. As a result, American soldiers are being killed—and this is no longer just news from another continent, but events occurring on Jordanian soil.

As The Jerusalem Post noted, the Iranian strikes against Jordan were a calculated move: Tehran sought to “sow discord within Jordan and create governmental chaos.” Professor Ronen Itzhak commented on the situation as follows: “This is exactly what Iran was trying to achieve by launching missiles at Jordan. Its goal is to pressure the Jordanian population into demanding the removal of the American presence.”

And Iran is succeeding. Every new attack reinforces the position of critics of the U.S. presence: the alliance with Washington is costing Jordan in direct security losses.

Storm in Parliament: Condolences to “Child Killers”

A particularly telling episode occurred in the Jordanian parliament in late July. Deputy Ali al-Khalayleh proposed sending official condolences to the U.S. Congress over the deaths of American servicemen on Jordanian soil.

The proposal sparked a storm. Other legislators fiercely attacked al‑Khalayleh. They called the United States “the biggest supporter of Israel, which has committed a massacre in Gaza,” and branded American soldiers “child killers.” “The Jordanian people are above such condolences,” their opponents declared.

What made the situation especially delicate was that al‑Khalayleh himself had earlier described the U.S. military presence in Jordan as “a walk with shepherds.” Now he was proposing that parliament express formal condolences to Washington—and he was jeered by his colleagues.

What matters is that opposition to American policy in parliament came not from fringe activists, but from elected representatives within an official political institution. This indicates that discontent with the U.S. alliance is penetrating the highest levels of Jordan’s political system.

Trump’s Double Game

U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, also fanned the flames. After the deaths of American soldiers in Jordan, he effectively blamed Jordanian forces for incompetence. “If we had different air defense operators, this would not have happened,” Trump said, hinting that the Jordanians had failed to provide adequate protection for U.S. troops. “When you let others do your work… sometimes things go wrong,” the president added.

For Jordanian critics of the American presence, these words were yet another confirmation of their position: Washington itself does not consider Jordan a safe place for its troops and is ready to shift the blame for their deaths onto local authorities.

The Jordanian government, by contrast, could have used the same attacks as proof of the need to strengthen air defense in cooperation with the United States. But amid growing public dissatisfaction, that argument sounds increasingly weak.

Iran Plays on the Divide

Iran’s strategy in this conflict is anything but subtle, yet at the same time highly professional. Tehran consistently draws a distinction between the Jordanian people and the Jordanian government. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a direct appeal to Jordanians, stating that Iran is “not hostile to Jordan” and that its grievances are only with the American military presence.

“America is using bases on Jordanian soil to wage aggression and commit massacres against our people. It is our legitimate right to strike the aggressor wherever he launches his attacks,” the Iranian military declared. And in the view of many analysts, Tehran has a point on this issue.

Moreover, Iranian propaganda went further: the IRGC claimed that information about the location of U.S. troops in Jordan had been provided by Jordanian civilians and military personnel themselves and expressed gratitude to the Jordanian people for their cooperation.

In this way, Iran is trying to deepen the rift between the authorities and society, using the Palestinian cause as a lever. Support for Palestine is deeply rooted in Jordanian society, and the war in Gaza and Washington’s backing of Israel have only intensified anti‑American sentiment. That is precisely why Iranian statements fall on fertile ground.

Media Blockade and Information Gap

Paradoxically, despite the significance of the letter and the many prominent signatories, major Jordanian media outlets did not publish it in full. Critics of the government saw this as evidence of severe restrictions on political and media space in Jordan. Analysts argued that the limited room for dissent means that the level of opposition visible in the media is likely lower than the actual discontent in society.

As a result, the letter was disseminated mainly through social networks and foreign media. The Jordanian government, for its part, sought to frame the conflict not as a geopolitical problem but as a matter of national security. Official statements emphasized border defense and Jordan’s refusal to take part in the war.

However, in the age of social media, traditional methods of managing information are working less and less effectively. Citizens see videos online, read international reports, and compare them with official statements. The growing gap between the official version and what people see with their own eyes is undermining trust in the authorities.

The Price of Alliance

Jordan’s economy was already under severe strain due to inflation, unemployment, and declining purchasing power. The conflict dealt an additional blow to the tourism sector, which accounts for up to 18% of the country’s revenues. In the first half of 2026, income from tourism and Jordanian expatriates fell by 12%, from American tourists by 25%, and from European tourists by 28%. At the same time, the United States provides Jordan with about $1.65 billion annually in economic and military aid.

King Abdullah II’s government finds itself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the alliance with the United States brings billions in aid and security guarantees. On the other hand, that same alliance turns the country into a target, undermines internal stability, and erodes citizens’ trust in the authorities.

As Professor Itzhak noted, “The King of Jordan has the sovereignty to make independent decisions in accordance with the constitution, so it is unlikely that he will change the country’s policy.” But the question is how much longer Jordanian society can endure being held hostage to a geopolitical game in which it has no voice.

The open letter from Jordanian public figures is not just a protest against foreign troops. It is a symptom of a deep crisis of trust between the authorities and society, between the government’s strategic calculations and the real interests of its citizens. War, the Palestinian question, the American military presence, and national sovereignty have become tightly interwoven—a knot that Amman is finding increasingly difficult to untie.

Traditional methods of managing public opinion are working less and less effectively in the age of social media. Jordanians are no longer passive recipients of official messages—they actively seek out alternative sources of information and compare them with government statements. And this growing comparison may prove to be the biggest challenge for the Jordanian government, because in today’s world, controlling the flow of information is far harder than controlling the country’s borders or its airspace.

Muhammad Hamid ad‑Din is a prominent Palestinian journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on “We Are Being Drawn Into a War We Don’t Want to Fight”: What Jordan’s Alliance with Washington Is Costing It

Trump Slaughters Wedding Guests, Zelenskyy Threatens Airliners

By Kevin Barrett | September 6, 2026

When Zelenskyy threatened to shoot down civilian airliners last week, Putin called it “state terrorism.” Putin is right, of course. But the expression he used, “state terrorism,” is a repetitiously redundant pleonasm.

Virtually all terrorism is state terrorism. So appending the word state in front of the word terrorism isn’t really necessary.

Case in point: Trump’s slaughter of Iranian schoolgirls, female volleyball players, and wedding guests. Such acts fit the definition of terrorism: politically-motivated attacks on civilians. The purpose of attacking civilians is to inspire fear or terror among them, so they will react in ways that further the terrorist’s political plans.

Terrorist Trump and his Israeli owners have made no secret of the fact that they intend to attack civilians and especially civilian infrastructure in Iran—which even the mainstream media acknowledges is a war crime—in hopes of spreading so much pain and misery and death that the Iranian people rise up against their government. But as Caleb Carr explained in his post-9/11 book The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians, such “punish-the-civilians” policies rarely work. Hitler’s buzz-bombs didn’t convince the British to rise up and overthrow Churchill, nor did the British and American firebombings of German cities cause the Germans to revolt against Hitler. On the contrary, such terrorist policies typically backfire: the people punished worst are dead, while the survivors feel selected by God or fate or destiny to unite behind their nation’s leadership and fight even more furiously against the foreign terror-mongers attacking their country.

And Iran—where a powerful cult of martyrdom is built into the majority religion—is the last country on earth that anybody is ever going to successfully terrorize into submission. Iran’s war on terror, specifically its war on Zio-American terror, is genuine, and likely to be far more successful than the ersatz US equivalent.

Civilian Casualty Ratios Keep Rising

The West likes to think it is growing increasingly civilized. But its wars grow ever-more barbaric and terrorist. In World War I, about half of the slightly over 20 million deaths were civilians. In World War II, just one generation later, nearly two-thirds of the 60 million deaths were civilians. The Vietnam terror war waged by the USA probably killed far more than the two million official death count, with more than three-quarters of the victims civilians. Likewise, the official death counts in the 9/11 wars against Iraq and Afghanistan—and the covert wars on Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and of course Palestine—are almost certainly far too low, while the civilian-to-military casualty ratio just keeps getting higher, and is probably in the 80% or higher range. (For high-end casualty estimates that counter the official undercounts in these wars, read Gideon Polya.)

Let’s ask Gemini, which obviously comes with a pro-state bias, who the real terrorists are. Hey Gemini: How many civilians have died in all the wars beginning with World War I, and what percentage were killed by non-state actors?

Gemini: An estimated 110 million to 140 million civilians have died in all wars globally starting from World War I (1914) to the present day, with the vast majority—roughly 95% or more—killed by state actors (governments and their official militaries) rather than non-state actors.

Given Gemini’s bias, we can safely translate “95% or more” as “99%+.” I rest my case: Virtually all terrorism is committed by governments.

But that’s not the way the government’s propaganda apparatus sees it. They want you to believe that the world is a scary-scary place full of evil (non-government) terrorists plotting to bomb you or shoot you or crash your airliners or blow up your buildings. And they want you to run to the real terrorists—the government—for protection.

That’s why they chose 9-1-1 as the date code for their big 2001 psy-op. When you’re terrified and panicked and faced with senseless violence, who do you call? You call the government in hopes they will save you. The three digits 9-1-1 subconsciously represent the trust populations place in their “big mommy and daddy,” their government, to get them out of serious trouble. Specifically, the terrorist perpetrators of 9/11 wanted panicked Americans to volunteer their persons and/or their tax money, not to mention their fervent ideological and emotional support, to their Israeli-occupied government so it could “protect them from further such attacks” by invading the Middle East and destroying Israel’s enemies.

It was in fact Israel’s agents who blew up the Towers after flying remote-controlled planes into buildings. Through Epstein-style blackmail, financial control, and media domination, Israel infiltrated the US government like a parasite hijacking the brain of its host, sending Uncle Sam on a state terrorism spree whose only major beneficiary was the malignant Zionist entity itself.

But even people who imagine that 9/11 was done by al-Qaeda—the same al-Qaeda that the US created and has supported since its inception in the Afghan war against the USSR, the same al-Qaeda whose Syrian chief Trump recently invited to the White House and playfully sprayed with perfume—and who further imagine that al-Qaeda is a non-state entity as opposed to a US-Israeli front—ought to take a hard look at the statistics to get a sense of how nonexistent a threat “non-state terrorism” really is. As I wrote in Questioning the War on Terror:

Statistically, there are good grounds for wondering whether we should bother to worry about terrorism at all. Roughly 3000 Americans have been killed by (allegedly non-state) terrorists during the past century. In other words, a whole century’s worth of terror victims equals three days’ worth of cigarette fatalities, a week’s worth of deaths from bad medical treatment, or a month’s worth of automobile deaths. Shouldn’t we worry far more about cigarettes, doctors, and automobiles than about terrorists?

And how does your chance of being killed by terrorists compare with your chance of being struck by lighting? It turns out that lighting is a vastly greater threat. There are on average about 1000 lightning victims per year in the USA, whereas the average number of terror victims per year—a number wildly skewed upward by the fluke of 9/11—is still only about thirty.

Are terrorists at least more dangerous than… bathtubs? Nope. It turns outthat your chances of drowning in your bathtub are more than ten times as great as your chances of being killed by a terrorist.

Should we declare war against lightning bolts and bathtubs? Should we install PA systems in our bathrooms reminding us that the threat level of bathtub drowning has been raised to orange? Should we create a new Department of Bathtub Security (DBS) empowered to do sneak-and-peak warrantless searches of our bathrooms to make sure that we’re using no-slip bathmats? Should we invade and occupy countries that we falsely blame for bathtub deaths? Would this be any crazier than what we’re doing now, allegedly due to the equally insignificant “terrorist threat”?

So the whole notion of terrorism as a supposedly non-state phenomenon is a scam, a hoax, and a psy-op. Grossly exaggerating the alleged threat posed by non-state terrorists is itself a form of state terrorism, in the sense that the state is using propaganda to terrorize its population for political purposes.

Imagine a sadistic criminal who ties up and tortures his victim, all the while insisting that his actions are motivated by a desire to protect the victim from an imaginary bogeyman. That criminal is the government, the victim is its population, and the imaginary bogeyman is the supposed threat of non-state “terrorists.”

War for a Multipolar World: The Real War on Terror

The covert World War III being waged today appears, on the surface, to be between the Zionist-oligarch-occupied world-domination-seeking West, on the one hand, and the partisans of the multipolar-world, led by China, Russia and Iran, on the other. But beneath the surface, there is a philosophical-ideological war. It isn’t as obvious as the capitalism-vs.-communism Cold War clash, but it’s real nonetheless.

The ideological dimension of World War III can be expressed as follows: Should governments gain legitimacy through terror, or through competent administration in service to the public good?

While no government perfectly embodies either ideal, Israel and its occupied USSA come close to being pure terror states. Both governments purport to be protecting their populations from “terrorist threats” and derive much of their perceived legitimacy from that purported protection. 9/11, and 10/7 (“Israel’s 9/11”) were the sacrificial spectacles that undergird the grossly mendacious ideological foundations of both terror states. Both terror states, built on foundations of state violence and lies, are having trouble maintaining public confidence.

China, for its part, does maintain popular consensus in part through somewhat mythologized but largely accurate accounts of its suffering at the hands of foreign aggressors, from the Opium War and the Century of Humiliation through the brutal Japanese occupation and subsequent US war on China through Korea. But its government primarily derives legitimacy not through violence and sacrifice, but through competent administration in the public interest.

If we ask Western-biased Gemini to contrast public confidence in the respective US and Chinese leadership, we find that worldwide China’s government inspires far more confidence, and that domestically:

United States: Public confidence in U.S. leadership and future direction faces continuous polarization, heavily influenced by shifting political administrations, domestic divisions, and foreign policy friction with traditional allies.

China: Domestic sentiment inside China reflects steady confidence in national economic power, technological growth, and rising global standing, which sustains government legitimacy and popular backing for Beijing’s international posture.

When Covert World War III finally ends with a multipolar victory, insha’allah, let us hope and pray that Chinese-style “competent administration” rather than Zio-American “terror lies in service to Girardian sacrifice” becomes the basis of a reasonably virtuous world authority capable of enforcing international law and punishing the real terrorists.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Trump Slaughters Wedding Guests, Zelenskyy Threatens Airliners

Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Intel Warns Iran Is Preparing a MAJOR Escalation

Dialogue Works | September 5, 2026

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Intel Warns Iran Is Preparing a MAJOR Escalation

US approves $5 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia as it renews aggression against Iran

Press TV | September 5, 2026

Washington has approved a potential $5 billion arms package for Saudi Arabia that would sharply expand the kingdom’s precision-strike capabilities as the United States escalates its war of aggression against Iran.

The deal includes more than 10,000 guidance kits designed to convert conventional bombs into extended-range, steerable precision weapons.

The State Department cleared the sale on Friday. The package also covers more than 10,000 general-purpose bombs requested by Riyadh, both 500-pound (230 kg) and 2,000-pound (900 kg) variants.

These guidance systems would turn unguided “dumb bombs” into accurate munitions capable of striking targets at greater distances with far higher precision.

Washington claims the transfer serves US foreign-policy and national-security interests by strengthening Saudi Arabia, which it calls a major non-NATO ally and an important contributor to political stability and economic development in the Persian Gulf.

The State Department said the weapons would enhance Saudi Arabia’s ability to conduct airborne strikes against current and potential regional threats, improve the kingdom’s defensive capabilities, and increase compatibility between Saudi systems and those used by US forces and other Persian Gulf partners.

Boeing, the Virginia-based US defense contractor, has been designated the principal contractor for the potential sale.

The approval comes as Washington expands arms transfers and military cooperation across the Persian Gulf while renewing its illegal war against Iran.

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched another round of aggression against Iran, eight months after carrying out unprovoked attacks on the country. Iran swiftly retaliated with barrages of missiles and drones against Israeli-occupied territories as well as US bases and interests across the region.

A ceasefire took effect on April 7. On June 18, the presidents of Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to end the war and begin a 60-day diplomatic process to resolve outstanding differences.

Renewed US strikes have once again triggered Iranian retaliation.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on US approves $5 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia as it renews aggression against Iran

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »