Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Stealth Bombers and Bunker Busters

A retrospective analysis of the so-called 12-Day War, and the triumphantly celebrated Operation Midnight Thunder

B-2 “Stealth Bomber” Dropping a GBU-57 “Bunker Buster” Bomb
By William Schryver | imetatronink | November 28, 2025

The GBU-57 is a big fat gravity bomb with fins. To achieve effective precision, a B-2 bomber must drop it on its intended target from no further than about five nautical miles — essentially right on top of the target.

Its penetration depth is claimed to be 200 feet. But that capability has NEVER been tested against a seriously hardened deep-underground target encased in layers of high-performance concrete, and topped with a few dozen meters of solid rock. In that sort of real-world scenario, the GBU-57 would be lucky to drill down 50 feet, if that.

It was always ridiculous silly talk to suggest the GBU-57 was the wonder weapon it was made out to be. There is a good reason the US only produced a couple dozen of them and then stopped: they understood its acute limitations in a non-permissive combat environment.

And, notwithstanding the hyperbolic Israeli propaganda, there was never any credible evidence that Iranian medium- and long-range air defenses against fixed-wing aircraft were attrited to any significant degree. And Iranian short-range air defenses were increasingly effective against long-range Israeli drones with each passing day.

As for the B-2: it is a big fat subsonic aircraft. It flies at airliner speeds. A strike on Fordow would entail flying at least 500 miles in and out of Iran.

It is nonsense that the B-2 is effectively invisible. It can be tracked from long distances, and targeted sufficiently well that missiles with effective terminal guidance (thermal / optical) can kill it.

The Iranians established during the October 26, 2024 Israeli counterstrike that they could paint F-35s with their radars. That is why the Israelis launched nothing but long-range stand-off munitions: aero-ballistic and cruise missiles – of which they have a very limited stockpile.

The same conditions prevailed during the 12-Day War.

And just as the Israelis were unwilling to risk getting fighters shot down over Iran, neither was the USAF willing to risk getting a B-2 shot down over Iran.

Maybe a few B-2s launched some JASSMs from over Iraq or the Caspian Sea. Maybe nothing but sub-launched Tomahawks hit Iranian targets. But it certainly wasn’t GBU-57 “Bunker Buster” bombs dropped by a half-dozen B-2s casually flying in Iranian airspace for an hour.

And whatever was dropped inflicted no meaningful damage. Fordow was scratched at best. A bunch of surface structures at Natanz were blown up.

Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program was destroyed is absurd nonsense. No one with even a modest understanding of these things believes that.

The Israelis certainly don’t believe it, and they have admitted as much.

It is true that, in retaliation, the Iranians precisely targeted and convincingly destroyed a significant communications complex at the American Al Udeid airbase in Qatar.

The fictionalized B-2 “Bunker Buster” strike on Fordow, and the token Iranian ballistic missile strike on Al Udeid were orchestrated events designed to grease the tracks of a ceasefire that was proposed by the Americans and agreed to by the Iranians.

The Americans and Israelis had expended almost their entire inventories of ballistic missile interceptors over the course of a week and a half, and Iranian missiles were raining down with effective impunity the last few days.

The Iranians knew damn well they had already achieved a strategic victory, despite their shaky start.

I’m also convinced the Russians and Chinese encouraged Iran to accept the ceasefire proposal.

It allowed both sides to claim a PR victory, lick their wounds, and prepare for the next round.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have more production capability than do their US/Israeli counterparts. And it also appears the Iranians are much more amenable to Russian and Chinese assistance now than they may have been previously.

When this war resumes, the Iranians will be comparatively stronger than they were before. And the risks for the US/Israel will be significantly heightened.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Will Saudi Arabia fund Israel’s grip over Lebanon?

By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | Novmber 27, 2025

In the wake of Israel’s November 2024 apparent ceasefire with Lebanon, Tel Aviv has moved to reshape the post-war order in its favor. Treating Lebanon as a weakened and fragmented state, Israel seeks to impose a long-term, unilateral security and economic regime in the south, bolstered by US backing.

Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia has thrust itself into the reconstruction process as the main Arab financier. But the kingdom risks becoming a junior partner in an Israeli-American project that sidelines it from real decision-making. The question facing Riyadh is clear: Will it bankroll its own marginalization?

Tel Aviv’s vision: Disarmament, deterrence, domination

Israel’s strategy for Lebanon extends far beyond the oft-repeated demand to disarm Hezbollah. It envisions a sweeping transformation of Lebanon into a demilitarized satellite state governed under a US-Israeli security framework. Nowhere is this clearer than in Tel Aviv’s insistence on remaining inside Lebanese territory until Hezbollah is stripped of its deterrent capabilities, not just south of the Litani River, but across the country.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and former Northern Command chief Uri Gordin have both publicly outlined this goal. Gordin even suggested establishing a permanent buffer zone inside Lebanon to serve as a “bargaining chip” for future negotiations, while Katz confirmed that Israeli forces would remain indefinitely in the south. Tel Aviv no longer seeks temporary deterrence, favoring permanent subordination.

Katz, for his part, has stated “Hezbollah is playing with fire,” and called on Beirut to “fulfill its obligations to disarm the party and remove it from southern Lebanon.”

Most recently, while addressing the Knesset, he warned that “We will not allow any threats against the inhabitants of the north, and maximum enforcement will continue and even intensify.”

“If Hezbollah does not give up its weapons by the year’s end, we will work forcefully again in Lebanon,” Katz reiterated. “We will disarm them.”

According to this blueprint, Lebanon is not considered a sovereign neighbor, but a security appendage to Israel’s northern frontier. State institutions are expected to serve as administrative fronts for a de facto Israeli-American command center. International aid, including funding from Arab states of the Persian Gulf, is being weaponized to enforce this new security-economic order.

From the perspective of Israel, the goals in Lebanon are not limited to the disarmament of Hezbollah. They go beyond that toward a deeper project of transforming Lebanon – especially the south – into a kind of security-economic colony.

This includes consolidating a long-term military presence, imposing new border arrangements, and paving the way for settlement projects or institutionalized buffer zones, as evidenced by current maps showing the presence of Israeli forces at several points inside Lebanese territory.

Saudi Arabia’s options: Pressure or partnership

Enter Riyadh. The Saudi Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for Lebanese arms to be confined to the state and endorsed the implementation of the 1989 Taif Agreement.

In September,  Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, stressed that:

“Saudi Arabia stands with Lebanon, supports everything that strengthens its security and stability, and welcomes the efforts of the Lebanese state to implement the Taif Agreement (1989), affirm its sovereignty, and place weapons in the hands of the state and its legitimate institutions.”

The Saudi envoy to Lebanon, Yazid bin Farhan, reiterated Riyadh’s position: the exclusive right to possess arms must lie with the Lebanese state. In private information, during a meeting between Bin Farhan and Sunni leaders in Lebanon, the diplomat stressed that pressure must be put on disarming the party, even if that requires reaching a civil war.

On the surface, Saudi and Israeli objectives appear aligned. Tel Aviv applies military pressure. Riyadh applies economic and political pressure. Both demand the end of Hezbollah’s armed presence. But while Israel’s aim is absolute control over Lebanon’s security order, Saudi Arabia still seeks a political system that reflects its influence. In this, Tel Aviv’s ambitions collide with Riyadh’s.

However, Israel has no intention of sharing influence with any Arab state – nor even Turkiye. Its model is exclusionary. It views Riyadh not as a partner, but as a bankrolling mechanism to finance the dismantling of Lebanon’s axis of resistance under Israeli terms. As former deputy director of the National Security Council, Eran Lerman put it, Saudi Arabia is merely a pressure tool to bring Lebanon to heel.

Thus, the crux of the matter is this: Riyadh may envision itself as a key stakeholder in post-war Lebanon, but Israel sees it as a disposable auxiliary.

The 17 May redux: Recolonizing south Lebanon

To grasp the depth of Israel’s project, one need only look to its precedents. In 1983, Israel, alongside the US and under Syrian oversight, tried to enshrine a similar model via the 17 May Agreement. That deal called for an end to hostilities, gradual Israeli withdrawal, a “security zone” in the south, and joint military arrangements. In practice, it turned Lebanon into a protectorate tasked with safeguarding Israeli security interests.

Today, after the 2024 war, Tel Aviv is resurrecting that same formula. Israeli forces have remained stationed at multiple points inside Lebanon despite the ceasefire terms mandating full withdrawal. Airspace violations and near-daily raids persist under the pretext of preventing Hezbollah from “repositioning.” Think tanks in Tel Aviv, alongside joint French-US proposals, are now pushing phased disarmament: first the south, then the Bekaa, then the Syrian border, ultimately ending all resistance capabilities.

International support is being dangled as a carrot. Aid from the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others is contingent on Lebanon executing a disarmament plan under International Monetary Fund (IMF) oversight and within a strict timeline. This is the economic arm of the Israeli security project.

More dangerously, Israeli studies suggest that reconstruction of southern villages should be explicitly tied to the removal of resistance forces, while preserving “full freedom of action” for the Israeli army in Lebanese air and land space.

Can Riyadh afford Tel Aviv’s trap?

In parallel with this vision, western analyses close to decision-making circles in Washington and Riyadh show that Saudi Arabia itself sees Lebanon as a pivotal arena in its conflict with Iran. Any serious return to the Lebanese file is linked to the weakening of Hezbollah’s influence.

But the key divergence between the Saudi and Israeli approaches lies in a critical question: Who ultimately holds the keys to decision-making in Lebanon?

Riyadh aims to use its financial and political capital to recalibrate the Lebanese political order in its favor, minimizing Iranian sway while reinforcing its own influence. But Israel’s plan is more radical: to redefine Lebanese sovereignty altogether, placing it under perpetual Israeli security oversight.

In this model, Saudi Arabia – and any other Arab state – is reduced to the role of financier, tasked with implementing terms written in Tel Aviv and Washington rather than contributing an independent Arab vision for the region.

From this angle, Tel Aviv’s persistent invocation of the “military option” in Lebanon works against Gulf interests. It positions Riyadh and its allies as the paymasters for reconstruction, forced to foot the bill for a post-war settlement they had no role in shaping.

If Saudi Arabia concedes to this logic – and fails to leverage its influence in Washington, in Arab diplomatic circles, and in donor mechanisms – it risks forfeiting Lebanon to a joint Israeli-American order.

That order would mirror the defunct 17 May Agreement, only more deeply entrenched. Lebanon would not only be demilitarized. It would become a living model of “security-economic conjugation,” designed to recalibrate regional influence away from the Arab world and toward an Israeli-dominated Levant.

November 28, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ‘drug boat’ attacks mirror controversial Obama-era tactic – NYT

RT | November 28, 2025

US airstrikes on suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean ordered by President Donald Trump bear similarities to the controversial ‘signature strikes’ on purported terrorists under former President Barack Obama, the New York Times has argued.

The Obama-era operations conducted primarily in Pakistan and Yemen relied on detecting patterns of behavior that US intelligence agencies claimed indicated terrorist activity, rather than identifying wrongdoing by specific individuals. Critics condemned the approach for its vague criteria – sometimes as broad as ‘military-age male’ in an area prone to militancy – and for resulting in civilian casualties.

Pentagon officials have acknowledged in closed-door briefings that they often do not know the identities of the people killed in what the White House calls a campaign against “narcoterrorism” in the Caribbean, the NYT reported on Thursday. Despite this, US officials insist that the comparison does not apply, arguing that the strikes are aimed at narcotics rather than individuals.

“They told us it is not a signature strike, because it’s not just about pattern of life, but it’s also not like they know every individual person on the boats,” Representative Sara Jacobs, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told the outlet.

The Obama administration’s killings of low-level militants and people merely assumed to be militants was criticized as counterproductive and fueling further radicalization. Trump officials reportedly argued that attacking boats at sea reduces the risk of collateral damage.

Some US allies, including the UK, have reportedly declined to assist with the ‘drug boat’ strikes, warning that they could violate international law. The campaign has already resulted in more than 80 deaths.

Analysts increasingly suspect that the operations could be laying the groundwork for a regime-change effort in Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, the US accuses of leading a criminal cartel.

November 28, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

After 75 years: Could Israel actually lose its UN membership this time?

By Dr Mohammad Yousef | MEMO | November 27, 2025

On 24 November 2025, civil-society actors in Chile launched a campaign calling for the expulsion of Israel from United Nations, invoking UN Charter Article 6. They base their call on what they describe as “continuous and systematic violations” of international humanitarian law and repeated breaches of UN resolutions, particularly in light of ongoing Genocide in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there.

Article 6 of the UN charter states: “A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

This is not the first such call. In September 2025, following Israeli airstrikes on Qatar targeting Hamas officials, Pakistan demanded Israel’s suspension or expulsion from the UN for violating international law and threatening international peace and security. Pakistan’s UN ambassador warned that Israel’s actions risked regional stability and global lawlessness.

Similarly, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), has repeatedly urged Israel’s suspension from the UN, Citing the crime of genocide that Israel committed against Palestinians. Targeting UN premises, violating the UN charter and labeling the UN as a terrorist organization.

The UN Charter provides mechanisms for suspension or expulsion of member states under Articles 5 and 6, while Article 6 deals with the expulsion, Article 5 deals with the suspension.

Historically and since its inception after World War II, the UN has never expelled or suspended any state member from the organization under Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter. However, the attempt to block South Africa from attending UNGA meetings was successful, following the U.N. General Assembly approval of the Credentials Committee’s recommendation to cancel the credentials of South Africa, citing the country’s Apartheid-era racial policies.

Multiple attempts were made in order to expel Israel from the UN in the past, but all of them remained unsuccessful due to either political pressure or threats to use the Veto power. The first attempt was in 1975 when Algeria and Syria led a joint campaign aiming for the suspension of Israel from the UNGA, this step requires the recommendation of the UNSC, and due to the U.S veto threat the process was halted. However, alternative ways were explored in order to isolate Israel leading to the UNGA Resolution 3379 adopted in November 1975,  which declared Zionism to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

Another attempt was organized by 34 Muslim states and the Soviet Union (USSR). These states sent a letter to the UN General Assembly Credentials Committee requesting Israel’s expulsion from the UNGA. The letter stated:

… “Israel’s continued defiance and its flagrant and persistent violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. Furthermore, we wish to reiterate Israel’s contempt and its defiant challenge to the resolutions of the United Nations as they relate to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East.”

The states further emphasized Israel’s non-adherence to the UN Charter and its violations of obligations, arguing that this makes Israel a non–peace-loving state, which is a requirement for UN membership. This attempt was obstructed by Israel’s allies in the US and western countries. As a result, it failed to gain the required two-thirds majority and remained unsuccessful.

IN 2018, the Kenest passed the Nation-State bill, which in its Article 1(a)  states that: “The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established. “The president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, called the Nations-State Law, “Illegitimate, Racist and apartheid”.  Following this, and in response to this Law, the PA lunched an initiative calling for Israel’s expulsion form the UN. However, this initiative failed and did not progress  due to the U.S threat to cut UN funding.

Given the above precedent, the campaign to expel Israel from the UN is legally grounded — but faces dıfrrent types of political pressure and institutional barriers. Any real proposal would require: (a) adoption by the Security Council; (b) absence of vetoes by any of the five permanent members (P5). Given current geopolitical alignments, particularly the support for Israel by some P5 states, such a proposal is unlikely to pass.

Nevertheless, the fact that the legal mechanism exists, coupled with mounting global outrage over Israel’s violations and Genocide in Gaza — equip  the call with significant symbolic and political weight. Even if immediate expulsion is unrealistic, pressing for such a step can be part of a broader strategy of international isolation, reputational pressure, and incremental delegitimization.

Because expulsion or suspension of a state member from the UN under Article 5 and 6 is difficult, as it must go through the UNSC and most likely face U.S Veto power. As of September 2025, the U.S has used its veto 51 times to shield Israel. Acting within the framework of the UN General Assembly has a greater chance of success, particularly given the recent overwhelming support for Palestine and the noticeable shift in many states’ positions in favour of Palestine.

In May 2024, by an overwhelming majority vote, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the Palestinians’ right to admission to the UN and to obtain full membership in the organization. The resolution passed with 143 votes in favor, 9 against, and 25 abstentions. Similarly, in September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling on Israel to bring  an end without delay its unlawful presence, the resolution passed with 124 votes in favour,14 against, and 43 abstentions. On 12 September 2025, the “New York Declaration” supporting a two-state solution was endorsed by 142 UN member states, with just 10 votes against and 12 abstentions.

As with the South Africa case, the credentials of Israel’s delegation can be blocked following a letter to the UNGA Credentials Committee and a two-thirds majority vote by UNGA member states. This scenario is likely to succeed, given the growing global support for the rights of the Palestinian people within the UN.

There is another alternative: appealing to the UN General Assembly resolution “Uniting for Peace.” Adopted on 3 November 1950 (during the Korean War), it was designed to empower the GA when the Security Council is deadlocked by vetoes. Under this mechanism, the GA can convene special emergency sessions and recommend collective measures—including economic, political, or even armed action—against states threatening peace when the UNSC fails to act.

Since proclaiming itself a state on historic Palestine, Israel has repeatedly been accused of war crimes, genocide, and violations of the UN Charter, posing serious threats to international peace. After October 7th, 2023 until today, over 100,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, more than 1.9 million Gazans and tens of thousands of West Bankers have been forcibly displaced by Israel, Gaza’s healthcare and educational systems massively destroyed by Israel. Within a year or less, Israel has attacked seven countries, violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including,  Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, Tunisia, and the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel continues to expand its occupation and settlements into the West Bank and Syria, planning de jure annexations and maintaining indefinite military presence.

Given that Israel faces no serious international pressure and collective sanctions, the UN and international community—including states and NGOs—must apply maximum pressure through all possible means. The call to expel Israel from the UN or the suspension of its membership are not a rhetorical measure only — they rest on the clear text of Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter. Yet, Political pressure, institutional realities — especially the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members can halt any efforts in this regard.

In this very critical moment in the prolonged legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people against the apartheid regime in Israel, calling for Israel’s expulsion or suspension from the UN, or blocking its credentials in the UNGA, is not only justified but necessary to stop the ongoing genocide and grave violations. States and the international community, through the UN, are obligated to translate diplomatic commitments into tangible actions—isolating Israel politically, legally, economically, and diplomatically—and holding it accountable for its crimes and violations of the UN Charter and international law.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s threat of nukes shows us who is running U.S. foreign policy

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 27, 2025

It is a long-debated subject. Whether it is the U.S. which controls Israel or the other way around. In the 70s, under President Nixon, many analysts firmly believed, despite the JFK assassination, that it was still the U.S. who called the shots and used Israel as a useful tool in the Middle East to keep a rowdy group of Arab states in check and subservient to America’s interests. But it is in recent years where we have to see if Israel has done that effectively and meticulously in America’s interests, given that most analysts agree that Israel and the U.S. are both preparing for war with Iran.

Given that Israel’s main task was to keep the region in order to serve America’s hegemony and its energy needs, one has to ask isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony? And doesn’t this tail wagging the dog scenario show itself in the clear light once and for all?

Recently two startling revelations about Israel’s attacks on Iran in June – otherwise known as the ‘twelve-day war’ have surfaced which should worry Americans as it shows just how far this abusive relationship has become, with Israel playing the role of the spoilt child waving daddy’s pistol as its master. Former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and the formidable U.S. academic John Mearsheimer have both confirmed that it was Israel who basically threatened Trump that if he didn’t send ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Iran in a bid to destroy the country’s underground nuclear facilities that they, Israel, would bomb Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump rolled over of course and complied.

But this extraordinary act by Israel illustrates just how far this Nabokov-esque relationship between Lolita and her foster dad has got. To the point that world wars involving nukes is now on the table for any U.S. president who thinks he can play hardball with Israel. The twist to this story is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites was not at all a success as it has become evident that the Iranians knew it was coming and moved out a lot of the nukes days beforehand. And even the bombing itself didn’t have anywhere near the impact that was expected. It was symbolic more than anything in that it sent a message to the Iranians that such an act was possible under the Trump administration.

In many ways the attack was a gift to the Iranians as it focused their minds and made them aware where they needed to improve their defensive capabilities. It was a test run and they learnt from it.

But for the Americans it certainly couldn’t be called a success.

If it were a success, even the laziest two-bit hack in Washington could arrive at the obvious question, when hostilities kick off again, why are we at war with Iran if we’ve taken out their nuclear capability?

The U.S. has been busy in recent weeks sending naval ships and preparing for air-to-air refuelling of Israel’s jets – crucial in any conflict with Iran given the distance between the two countries – which merely confirms two poignant points. Firstly, that Iran’s response the first time round had significant impact on Israel’s military arsenal (many military sites in Israel were taken out completely, barely mentioned by U.S. media); and secondly that even the U.S. had had its own stocks depleted – which is why a pause quickly came about after the twelve-days. U.S. and Israel needed to rearm but also prepare themselves for the second phase, while Iran itself has improved its own air defences and reached out to Russia and China for rearming.

And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military could even imagine was possible, given that this time around Iran is so much better prepared and that the surprise of using Azerbaijani airspace cannot be repeated. The Israelis don’t have any hit-n-run surprise tactics to rely on, which might lead some analysts to believe that a bigger, broader attack is in the making with the U.S. as a key partner rather than chief supplier. Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan. And all this under the watch of Donald Trump whose entire support base was about stopping ‘forever wars’ [for Israel] in the Middle East. How will he explain to his broader support base that he has nothing to do with U.S. troops being sent to their deaths in Iran, that it is Israel who controls such decisions?

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran demands accountability after US admits role in June strikes

The Cradle | November 27, 2025

Iran’s UN ambassador on November 27 urged the Security Council to act after Washington publicly confirmed its direct role in June’s joint US-Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the operation an unlawful act of aggression that demands full accountability and reparations.

In a letter addressed to the UN secretary-general and Security Council president, Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the latest US Air Force admission – acknowledging that US F-35s penetrated Iranian airspace and escorted B-2 bombers to strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – confirms “once again” that the US directly participated with Israel in attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities.

He cited the 24 November US Air Force statement announcing that “In June, the 34th was called upon to escort a strike package, including B-2 Spirit bombers, to strike underground nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan during Operation Midnight Hammer,” and that “On 22 June, a formation of F-35s … was the first aircraft to penetrate Iranian airspace.”

Iravani noted that these disclosures align with US President Donald Trump’s earlier remarks openly asserting Washington’s leading role.

The ambassador described the 12-day campaign as an act that targeted Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, adding that the operation included deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian sites.

He wrote that the US is obligated under established international law to provide full reparation, including restitution and compensation for all material and moral damage.

According to Iravani, Washington’s admission also establishes the individual criminal responsibility of US officials involved in the operation.

He reiterated Tehran’s “full and unequivocal” right to pursue all legal avenues to secure accountability and recover losses resulting from what he called an internationally wrongful act.

Iravani urged the Security Council and the wider UN system not to remain silent, saying they must take measures consistent with their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security, ensure accountability of both the US and Israel, and bring those responsible to justice. He requested that the letter be circulated as an official UN Security Council document.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Recruits Mercenaries for Ukraine in Philippines – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 27.11.2025

The United States has launched a campaign in the Philippines to recruit volunteers to fight on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces, with the German Embassy issuing Schengen visas, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

“According to incoming information, US representatives have launched a campaign in the Philippines to recruit local citizens to fight on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces … Preference is being given to former employees of Philippine security agencies and retired military personnel. Applicants are promised a monthly salary of $5,000,” Zakharova told at a briefing.

The recruitment is carried out by a US security agency from Florida, and before being sent to the conflict zone, the recruits undergo training under the supervision of US instructors and receive a German Schengen visa, the spokeswoman added.

“A work Schengen visa is issued at the consular section of the German Embassy in Manila,” Zakharova said.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The biggest fish caught in China’s “debt trap”

The US is the “victim” as the largest recipient of Chinese official credits and loans

By Hua Bin | November 27, 2025

An Indian by the name of Brahma Chellaney, employed by Center of Policy Research based in New Delhi and funded by US State Department, coined the term “debt trap” to demonize Chinese loans for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) across developing countries.

It’s clear, just by the origin of the term, that it was a smear job by a dimwit sour grape. His argument has since been roundly debunked by researchers and analysts from John Hopkins, Harvard, and the Chatham House. None of them can be described as trolls for China.

For example, research by the New York-based Rhodium Group and John Hopkins University has shown no instance of China seizing strategic assets due to debt defaults, a core claim by Chellaney and the “debt trap” advocates.

Studies done by London-based Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), a very anti-China outfit by its track record, contrast China’s debt management with that of Western bondholders and institutions.

Their analyses demonstrate China has shown far greater willingness to provide debt rescheduling and relief, while Western lenders such as the World Bank and IMF are quick to resort to legal measures.

Western loans also often come with conditionalities that negatively affect a country’s economic productivity – such as deregulation and privatization.

Ironically, while India sounds the alarm on “debt trap”, the country itself is the largest recipient of loans from the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a financial institution funded primarily by China.

Of course, the Indians are presumably so “smart” that they are immune to any “debt trap”. Their lenders and creditors are the ones who need to worry about being “trapped”.

Very predictably, such a discredited lie is not too low for most Western governments to adopt as the holy script since it fits their geopolitical narrative.

And the term has become a regular in the official lexicon of western governments and media.

A recent study on Chinese official lending done by the College of William and Mary (W&M) in Virginia, the second oldest university in the US, is very telling and goes to show the disparity of Western claims and empirical evidence on the ground.

The AidData research lab at W&M found that China is the largest creditor nation in the world and its global lending since the turn of the century has been “vastly” larger than previously understood, with loans and grants increasingly going to developed countries.

The US is by far the largest recipient – nearly US$202 billion of the US$2.2 trillion disbursed by China’s “official sector” between 2000 and 2023 went to projects in the US.

Note the data excludes China’s purchase of US Treasury bonds.

“Our data demonstrate that the US – a high-income country – is the single largest recipient of official sector credit from China. This finding is both unexpected and counterintuitive,” wrote researchers of the study released earlier this month.

“This is an extraordinary discovery, given that the US has spent the better part of the last decade warning other countries of the dangers of accumulating significant debt exposure to China, and accusing China of practicing “debt trap” diplomacy,” said Brad Parks, AidData’s executive director.

The study, compiled over 36 months using more than 246,000 sources, covered a wide range of Chinese official lenders, including state policy banks, state-owned commercial banks, state-owned companies, state-owned funds, and the central bank.

Some of the Chinese lending in the US involved the construction of “critical infrastructure”, helping to bankroll the construction of major liquefied natural gas pipelines in Rio Grande, Port Arthur and Freeport, the Dakota Access oil pipeline, an electric power transmission line feeding New York City, data centres in Virginia, and airport terminals in New York and California, among other projects.

Official Chinese lenders also financed the merger and acquisition of hi-tech companies in the US and provided liquidity support – via working capital and revolving credit facilities – to a wide array of Fortune 500 companies.

The research lab described most Chinese loans to the US “are guided by the pursuit of profit rather than the pursuit of geopolitical or geoeconomic advantage”.

While China is well known for lending to Global South countries via BRI, the report found that 10 of the 20 largest destinations between 2000 and 2023 were high-income countries, including the UK, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland.

Russia was the second largest recipient after the US, with a cumulative US$171.78 billion in loans and grants over the period, followed by Australia with a total of US$130 billion.

According to AidData, China’s total overseas lending portfolio is two to four times larger than previously published estimates, making China the world’s biggest official creditor by a large margin.

Its lending portfolio has evolved significantly over time – in 2000, 88% of China’s lending went to low-income countries; by 2023, financing going to developed countries rose to 76%.

China had approved loans and grants for more than 30,000 “projects and activities” worldwide between 2000 and 2023. A total of 9,764 of those projects and activities were in high-income countries.

The AidData report claims China offers debt, equity and grants in “flexible, innovative and complementary ways to advance its geostrategic and commercial interests”.

China is increasingly seen as an “international creditor of first – and last – resort”, according to the report summary.

The disconnect between the Western propaganda and the reality on the ground is revealing – the hypocrisy of calling Chinese lending “debt trap” while engaging in a feeding frenzy in a trough of Chinese money.

Western governments and media’s twisted narratives about China live on a hotbed of cynicism and stupidity.

For such narratives to be believed, one of two things must be true – either the readers are so cynical they are willing to swallow patently false narratives to feed their bigotry, or the readers are so dumb that they don’t possess basic faculty for critical thinking.

This reminds one of other similarly ludicrous talking points. For example, Western pundits regularly claim China’s domestic economy precarious because of persistent “deflation”.

While it’s true that prices have been stable or falling slightly in the last 2 – 3 years, how is it a bad thing for consumers?

Why should consumers welcome “rising prices” – as the wide-spread inflation in much of the West?

Shouldn’t prices of goods fall when manufacturing scale and efficiency improve and companies compete for consumers in an open marketplace?

Why are high corporate profit margins as a result of higher prices a good thing for consumers?

In China, average real household income growth in 2024 was 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the nominal growth rate 5.2% due to lower prices. Isn’t this better than negative real income growth in most Western countries?

In China, the effective interest rate for 30-year mortgage is 3.1% on average, and 2.65% for first time buyers. Isn’t this better than paying 6 to 9% as in other countries?

You have to be a real retard or cynically shut down any critical thinking to believe in the garbage from the lying media.

And it’s more than the media. A prime source of such garbage comes from “elected leaders”.

Ted Cruz, the 3-time US Senator from Texas, wrote in a recent op-ed that Chinese AI dominance would mean “state-run surveillance and coercion”, while an American win would guarantee a technology anchored by “liberty, human dignity, and the rule of law”.

If this self-serving propaganda comes from someone with a modicum of credibility, it might carry some weight. But coming from Ted Cruz, one of the most despised men in his home country the US, the irony is overwhelming.

This is Ted Cruz talking. The same Ted Cruz, christened “lyin’ Ted” by the Donald, who became Trump’s most loyal lapdog three months after Trump insulted his wife’s looks (whom Cruz claimed as “the love of my life”) and hinted his father helped kill JFK.

This is the same Ted Cruz who was voted as “the most unlikeable person” by former classmates (including his college roommate) and fellow Republican colleagues.

The same Ted Cruz who fled to a Ritz in Cancun when his voters were frozen to death during the Texas freeze in ’21.

John McCain, late warmonger par excellence and Cruz’s fellow senator, was quoted saying: “if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the senate, and the trial is in the senate, nobody would convict you”.

Even Lindsey Graham, who is a worthy contestant as the most despicable human with Cruz, said “if you shot Ted Cruz, it would be a hung jury”.

For this Ted Cruz, who failed to defend the honor of his own wife and father, to take the moral highroad and defend “human dignity” is the equivalent of a two-peso prostitute to lecture on chastity and virtue.

So, the question is – are those vile creatures like Cruz and Graham going to save the US from China’s “debt trap”?

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

STAY AWAY: 5 ways the Healthcare System will SCREW YOU OVER

Dr. Suneel Dhand | November 24, 2025

What I see, as a Doctor

Dr Dhand’s Free Health Rebellion Newsletter: https://drsuneeldhand.com/free-newsle…

Dr. Dhand’s Website: https://www.drsuneeldhand.com Ojais Wellness Natural Health Store (USA/North America): https://www.ojaiswellness.com

Ojais Wellness Natural Health Store (UK/Europe): https://www.ojaiswellness.co

Dr Dhand’s MetThrive Insulin Resistance Reversal & Natural Fat Loss 30-Day Health Reset: https://www.metthrive.com

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

This Thanksgiving, We’re Being Served ‘Fake China Threats’

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | November 26, 2025

As a long-time critic of Washington’s obsession with the so-called “China threat”—and having written an entire book debunking it, The Fake China Threat—I could not in good conscience allow this year’s Report to Congress of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission to pass without comment. If anything, the 2025 edition is an even more sweeping reiteration of the assumptions and exaggerations I have challenged for years. Page after page, the report presents an alarming narrative about Beijing’s intentions and capabilities, while simultaneously insisting that every corner of the globe—and every sector of American life—now constitutes a frontline in a zero-sum geopolitical struggle.

The report opens by accusing Beijing of such dire transgressions as “holding regime security” as “a core interest,” of seeking “control and influence” over “regional spheres,” of cooperating with “authoritarian states” for “geopolitical and strategic benefits,” and of “shaping narratives” through “propaganda, disinformation, and malign influence.” One could easily imagine identical language appearing about the Soviet Union, about Washington itself, or literally any power throughout history—yet when applied to Beijing, these otherwise banal behaviors are transformed into signs of imminent global domination.

Nowhere is this tendency more pronounced than in the section worrying over China’s “electrification drive” and its increasingly important role in global energy markets. More than sixty pages are devoted to the idea that China’s leadership in electric vehicles, solar manufacturing, and critical minerals mining represents a strategic threat. Absent from the report is any acknowledgment that Western corporations themselves eagerly shifted production to China, or that Washington—not Beijing—has been the global pioneer in using export controls as geopolitical coercion. When the United States weaponized semiconductor export restrictions, Beijing responded in kind with export controls on rare earths and battery materials. To portray this sequence of events as evidence of China’s uniquely sinister strategy is simply dishonest.

The Commission displays the same lack of self-awareness in its discussion of China’s space program. According to the report, “China has embarked on a whole-of-government strategy to become the world’s preeminent space power,” viewing space as a “warfighting domain” and seeking “superiority” to achieve “information dominance” in future conflicts. These statements are presented as though they reveal some shocking and destabilizing ambition. Yet even the report itself admits that the United States pursued precisely the same aims throughout the Cold War, beginning with Sputnik and culminating in the Apollo program—a state-directed race for prestige, technological supremacy, and ideological credibility. One could be forgiven for marveling at the Commission’s ability to recount this history without recognizing that China today is behaving exactly as the United States once did.

No area attracts more overwrought commentary than Taiwan. The Commission repeats the standard Beltway line that Taiwan is a “vital national interest,” a geopolitical linchpin whose fate somehow determines the future of American security. Yet as I have argued repeatedly, these claims fall apart under scrutiny. Taiwan is important to Washington because Washington has decided it is important. The obligations cited—the Taiwan Relations Act, American “credibility,” regional “order”—are political choices, not laws of nature. Yes, Taiwan produces world-leading semiconductors. But nothing about that fact requires risking a catastrophic great-power war; supply chains can be diversified or on-shored. Beijing’s pressure, moreover, is far from the unprovoked aggression the report suggests—it is rooted in the unresolved civil war of 1949, the inevitable conclusion of which Washington prevented, and remains largely reactive. None of this is to deny tensions exist, but turning Taiwan into a test of American resolve is precisely how manageable disputes become existential crises.

The report’s alarmism reaches farcical heights in Chapter Five: “Small Islands, Big Stakes: China’s Playbook in the Pacific Islands.” Here the Commission insists that tiny Pacific states—many with populations smaller than a Michigan suburb—constitute a strategic battleground essential to the wellbeing of the American people. Any Chinese port investment, loan program, or diplomatic visit is portrayed as a step toward regional domination. Yet nowhere does the Commission attempt to explain how the average American benefits from micromanaging the political and economic decisions of Kiribati or Fiji.

The underlying logic is clear: assume U.S. hegemony is the natural order of the world, treat any erosion of influence anywhere as an existential threat, and convert distant, marginal islands into “vital interests.” This rhetorical sleight of hand is a hallmark of threat inflation. It serves contractors, think-tankers, and bureaucracies far more than it serves the American public.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Commission’s sprawling list of recommendations. These range from creating a consolidated economic-statecraft agency with law-enforcement powers, to launching new global initiatives on undersea cable security, to deepening U.S. military and political involvement throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. They continue with calls for massive industrial-policy subsidies, a quantum-computing “race,” bioeconomy initiatives, and new industrial-finance mechanisms—all justified by the specter of Chinese power.

The recommendations amount to a blueprint for a vastly expanded national-security state: more intelligence authorities, more intervention abroad, more surveillance tools at home, more taxpayer-funded subsidies for favored industries. It is striking how rarely the Commission pauses to explain how these measures relate to the concrete economic or physical security of ordinary Americans. Instead, all problems—whether involving undersea cables in Micronesia or chip production in Taiwan—are collapsed into a single narrative of geopolitical rivalry requiring endless resources and unquestioned bipartisan support.

This is not a sober analysis of Chinese capabilities or intentions; it is a maximalist wish list for Beltway institutions whose influence grows in direct proportion to the threats they amplify. And when one examines who actually produced the report, the outcome is unsurprising: longtime Nancy Pelosi staffer Reva Price; former Project 2049 Chairman Randall Schriver; and contributions from the Atlantic Council and American Enterprise Institute. This is a who’s who of professional China hawks, each institutionally invested in perpetuating a highly militarized U.S.–China rivalry.

In sum, the Commission’s report is emblematic of the broader problem in Washington: a foreign-policy establishment unable to conceive of international politics except as a struggle for primacy, uninterested in distinguishing vital interests from peripheral ones, and institutionally incentivized to magnify threats rather than manage them. The American people deserve better than a foreign policy driven by inertia, ideology, and bureaucratic self-interest.

The good news is that alternative perspectives exist—and that skepticism toward these narratives is growing. The United States can pursue a stable, prosperous relationship with China without embracing the fear-mongering, militarism, and threat inflation that dominate reports like this one. It only requires the courage to question the assumptions that have guided Washington for too long.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Sex offender Epstein engaged in 2006 smear campaigns against US scholars: Report

Press TV – November 26, 2025

An investigative report has revealed that US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was involved in 2006 smear campaigns against two influential political scientists criticizing the Israeli regime’s interference in the American political system and foreign policies.

The report published by Drop Site news outlet on Tuesday said Epstein’s smear campaigns were launched after the Harvard Kennedy School released in March 2006 a working paper, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

The paper, which ran in the London Review of Books and became the basis for a book published the following year, was an analysis of the impact of pro-Israel advocacy and lobbying groups on the US political system, and the role of organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in shaping US foreign policy towards the West Asia region.

“Mearsheimer and Walt described a loose coalition of philanthropists, think tanks, advocacy groups, and Christian Zionist organizations that routinely pulled US policy toward the Middle East away from America’s national interest, as the US was being drawn into a military quagmire in Iraq,” Drop Site wrote.

The independent news outlet quoted the two scientists as saying in their paper, “Other special interest groups have managed to skew US foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical.”

According to Drop Site, even before the Kennedy School posted the paper online, the project had already spooked editors at The Atlantic, who originally commissioned the essay in the early 2000s.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Mearsheimer revealed that the editor of The Atlantic offered them a “$10,000 kill fee” if the publication didn’t print the article. Mearsheimer said, “That’s the fastest $10,000 we ever made.”

The news outlet said a wave of news articles labelled the two authors as anti-Semites after the paper was released, while the Anti-Defamation League weighed in to denounce what they called an “anti-Jewish screed.” The pressure became so intense that the Kennedy School removed its logo from the paper and added a disclaimer distancing the institution from its arguments.

“Unknown at the time, Jeffrey Epstein gave feedback on talking points to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt, and used his extensive social network to circulate allegations of anti-semitism against the two scholars,” Drop Site wrote.

During the first week of April 2006, as the news outlet said, Epstein received multiple early drafts of an attack piece by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz titled “Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy.”

Dershowitz, who also served as Epstein’s defense attorney in his criminal matters, accused Mearsheimer and Walt of recycling “discredited trash” from neo-Nazi and Islamist websites.

At one point, Epstein received a message from Dershowitz’s email address, with an assistant asking Epstein to help circulate copies of the attack piece, writing, “Jeffrey, were you going to distribute this for Alan?? If I should forward this to someone in your office, pls let me know.” Epstein replied in the affirmative, “Yes I’ve started.”

The news outlet said the consequences of a coordinated smear campaign by elite members of media and academia were dire for Mearsheimer and Walt.

“The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a scheduled talk by the pair in 2007, after pressure from pro-Israel supporters. Other institutions that previously welcomed them to speak now insisted that any appearance be “balanced” by an opposing speaker who was sympathetic to Israel,” Drop Site wrote.

“The backlash narrowed their platform in mainstream media, academia, and think tanks for years while making public appearances more difficult.”

Epstein played an unofficial yet influential role at Harvard University, leveraging over $9 million in donations to gain access and influence despite his 2008 conviction for sex offenses.

He helped establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics with a $6.5 million gift in 2003, had his own office and university card access, and visited Harvard more than 40 times after his conviction. His close ties to faculty allowed him to maintain a significant presence on campus until 2018. Harvard’s review criticized the institution’s handling of Epstein’s involvement and called for stricter policies on accepting donations from controversial figures.​

Epstein had been arrested in July 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. He reportedly hanged himself in his cell at the Manhattan Correctional Center in August of that year.

The circumstances surrounding his death have fueled years of speculation about his high-profile associates and possible efforts to conceal his crimes.

November 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

How CIA secretly triggered Sino-Indian war

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | November 26, 2025

From October 20 – November 21, 1962, a little-remembered conflict raged between China and India. The skirmish damaged India’s Non-Aligned Movement affiliation, firmly placing the country in the West’s orbit, while fomenting decades of hostility between the neighbouring countries. Only now are Beijing and New Delhi forging constructive relations, based on shared economic and political interests. A detailed academic investigation, ignored by the mainstream media, exposes how the war was a deliberate product of clandestine CIA meddling, specifically intended to further Anglo-American interests regionally.

In the years preceding the Sino-Indian War, tensions steadily brewed between China and India, in large part due to CIA machinations supporting Tibetan separatist forces. For example, in 1957, Tibetan rebels secretly trained on US soil were parachuted into the territory and inflicted major losses on Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army forces. The next year, these cloak-and-dagger efforts ratcheted significantly, with the agency airdropping weapons and supplies in Tibet to foment violent insurrection. By some estimates, up to 80,000 PLA soldiers were killed.

Mao Zedong was convinced that Tibetan revolutionaries, while ultimately US-sponsored, enjoyed a significant degree of support from India and used the country’s territory as a base of operations. These suspicions were significantly heightened by Tibet’s March 1959 uprising, which saw a vast outflow of refugees from the region to India, and the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama, their CIA-supported leader, by New Delhi. Weeks later, at a Chinese Communist Party politburo meeting, Mao declared a “counteroffensive against India’s anti-China activities.”

He called for official CPC communications to “sharply criticise” India’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru, stating Beijing “should not be afraid of making him feel agitated or of provoking a break with him,” and “we should carry the struggle through to the end.” For example, it was suggested that “Indian expansionists” be formally accused of acting “in collusion” with “British imperialists” to “intervene openly in China’s internal affairs, in the hope of taking over Tibet.” Mao implored, “we… should not avoid or circumvent this issue.”

Ironically, Nehru was then viewed with intense suspicion by the West due to his Non-Aligned commitment and broadly socialist economic policies. Thus, he could not be trusted to support covert Anglo-American initiatives targeting China. Meanwhile, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev considered Nehru an important prospective ally and was keen to maintain positive relations. Simultaneously, the Sino-Soviet Split, which commenced in February 1956 with Khrushchev’s notorious secret speech denouncing the rule of Joseph Stalin, was ever-deepening. Disagreements over India and Tibet only hastened the pair’s acrimonious divorce.

‘A weapon’

After months of official denunciations of Nehru’s policies toward Tibet, Beijing’s information war against India became physical in August 1959, with a series of violent clashes along the countries’ borders. Nehru immediately reached out to Moscow, pleading that they rein in their closest ally. This prompted a tense meeting in October 1959 between Khrushchev, his chief aides, and the CPC’s top leadership, at Mao’s official residence. Khrushchev belligerently asserted to his Chinese counterparts that their confrontations with New Delhi and unrest in Tibet were “your fault”.

The Soviet leader went on to caution about the importance of “preserving good relations” with Nehru and “[helping] him stay in power,” for if he was replaced, “who would be better than him?” Mao countered that India had “acted in Tibet as if it belonged to them,” and while Beijing also supported Nehru, “in the question of Tibet, we should crush him.” Assorted CPC officials then, one by one, forcefully asserted the recent border clashes were initiated by New Delhi. However, Khrushchev was highly dismissive.

“Yes, they began to shoot and they themselves fell dead,” he derisively retorted. A Soviet declaration of neutrality in the Sino-Indian dispute a month prior also provoked anger among the CPC contingent. Mao complained, “[the] announcement made all imperialists happy,” by publicly exposing rifts between Communist countries. Khrushchev et al were again unmoved by the suggestion. Yet, unbeknownst to attendees, they had all unwittingly stepped into a trap laid by the CIA, many years earlier.

In September 1951, a State Department memo declared, “The US should endeavor to use Tibet as a weapon for alerting” India “to the danger of attempting to appease any Communist government and, specially, for maneuvering [India] into a position where it will voluntarily adopt a policy of firmly resisting Chinese Communist pressure in south and east Asia.” In other words, it was believed that supporting Tibetan independence could force a Sino-Indian split. In turn, the Soviets might be compelled to take sides, deepening ruptures with Beijing.

This strategy informed CIA covert action in Tibet over the subsequent decade, which grew turbocharged when Allen Dulles became CIA chief in 1953. A dedicated, top-secret base was constructed for the separatists at Camp Hale, the US military’s World War II-era training facility in the Rocky Mountains. Local terrain – vertiginous, replete with dense forests – was reminiscent of Tibet, providing ample opportunity for insurgency practice. Untold numbers of militants were tutored there over many years.

At any given time, the CIA maintained a secret army of up to 14,000 Tibetan separatists in China. While the guerrillas believed Washington sincerely supported their secessionist crusade, in reality, the agency was solely concerned with creating security problems for Beijing, and resultantly inflicting economic and military costs on their adversary. As the Dalai Lama later lamented, the agency’s assistance was purely “a reflection of their anti-Communist policies rather than genuine support for the restoration of Tibetan independence.”

‘More susceptible’

Come October 1962, the CIA’s Tibetan operations had become such an irritant to China that PLA forces invaded India. Washington was well aware in advance that military action was imminent. A telegram dispatched to Secretary of State Dean Rusk five days prior to the war’s eruption forecast a “serious conflict” and laid out a detailed “line” to take for when the time came. First and foremost, the US would publicly make clear its “sympathy for the Indians and the problems posed by the Chinese intervention.”

However, it was considered vital to “be restrained in our expressions in the matter so as to give the Chinese no pretext for alleging any American involvement.” While New Delhi was already secretly receiving “certain limited purchases” of US military equipment, Washington would not actively “offer assistance” when war broke out. “It is the business of the Indians to ask,” the telegram noted. If such requests were forthcoming, “we will listen sympathetically to requests… [and] move with all promptness and efficiency to supply the items”:

“The US is giving assistance… designed to ease Indian military transport and communications problems. Additionally, the Departments of State and Defense are studying the availability on short notice and on terms acceptable to India of transport, communications and other military equipment in order to be prepared should the government of India request such US equipment.”

As predicted, the Sino-Indian conflict prompted Nehru to urgently reach out to Washington for military aid, a significant policy shift. Much of New Delhi’s political class duly adopted a pro-Western line, with calls for a review of the country’s Non-Aligned stance reverberating widely throughout parliament. Even Communist and Socialist parties that hitherto rejected any alliance with the US eagerly accepted the assistance. The CIA’s Tibetan operations had triumphed.

As a May 1960 Agency National Intelligence Estimate noted, “Chinese aggressiveness” toward New Delhi over Tibet had fostered “a more sympathetic view of US opposition to Communist China” among India’s leaders. This included “greater appreciation of the value of a strong Western – particularly US – position in Asia to counterbalance” Beijing’s influence regionally. However, the CIA noted how, as of writing, “Nehru has no intention of altering India’s basic policy of nonalignment, and the bulk of Indian opinion apparently still shares his attachment to this policy.”

The Sino-Indian War changed all that. A December 1962 Agency analysis of the conflict’s “outlook and implications” hailed New Delhi’s “metamorphosis”, which the CIA forecast would “almost certainly continue to open up new opportunities for the West.” The country was judged “more susceptible than ever before to influence by the US and the UK, particularly in the military field.” Conversely, the War had “seriously complicated the Soviet Union’s relations with India and aggravated its difficulties with China”:

“The USSR will place a high value on a continued close relationship with India. While its opportunity to build up lasting influence in the Indian military has virtually disappeared, it will probably continue to supply some military equipment and to maintain its economic ties with India.”

Subsequently, New Delhi began assisting Anglo-American intelligence gathering on China and became actively involved in CIA wrecking activities in Tibet. The Sino-Indian War’s spectre hung over relations between the two nations for many years thereafter, and border clashes occurred intermittently throughout. Now, though, as Donald Trump bemoaned in September, India appears enduringly “lost” to Beijing and its close partner Russia. Decades of determined US efforts to foment antagonism between the vast neighbours have come spectacularly undone, due to the sheer weight of geopolitical reality.

November 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »