Britain’s return to piracy to stop Russian ships – desperate attempt to demonstrate power
Ahmed Adel | January 28, 2026
British media claims that London is preparing to deal with tankers from Russian ports in the same way that the United States deals with tankers from Venezuela – by seizing them. However, Russia has the strength and means to protect its interests at sea and respond to all provocations, including possible pirate actions by Great Britain.
The United Kingdom is one of the few countries with experience in conducting naval operations after World War II, and despite major issues with the fleet, the traditions of the Royal Navy remain alive. The tradition of corsairs (state-sanctioned pirates) and piracy is closely linked to Britain, which even invited the best pirates to serve the Majesty. These are well-known facts from the age of the sailing fleet, and in essence, they show that these traditions are remembered and not forgotten.
The Russian ambassador to London, Andrey Kelin, also called the British government’s plans piracy.
“What politicians in London are talking about is essentially a return to the era of the pirate Edward Teach, known as Blackbeard,” Kelin said. “What they forget is that Britain has long ceased to be the ‘ruler of the seas,’ and its actions will not go unpunished.”
The US and Britain are two different countries, both in terms of power and other factors. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Trump administration has, for now, halted British plans to transfer the Chagos Islands, where an American military base is located, to Mauritius. In the wake of this humiliation, the British are now trying to demonstrate, especially to Europe, that they are not weak.
The reality is that the days when the British had major influence are gone. They can still carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks in Ukraine and the Black Sea. However, directly seizing Russian ships would trigger a devastating response that the British are simply not prepared for.
Recently, the US has seized seven tankers linked to Venezuela. The US does not have the legal right to take such actions, but the country is acting from a position of strength and has deliberately not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which upholds the principle of freedom of navigation.
Washington’s example clearly inspired London, which suddenly remembered that it could also sanction Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” just as the US sanctioned Venezuela. A law passed before the start of the Special Military Operation—the Sanctions and Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2018—includes a provision that allows merchant ships suspected of evading sanctions or sailing under a false flag to be searched and seized by the British military.
The British are not only considering the option of seizing oil tankers, but also financing Ukraine with oil stolen in this way.
This is all an attempt by Britain to demonstrate that it is a force to be reckoned with. In reality, their situation is quite dire. The events related to Greenland also revealed this.
Russia’s fleet can reliably and easily escort tankers through the Baltic, English Channel, and Mediterranean Sea, from Turkish waters and beyond, via the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Anything outside these routes would require more force, effort, and involvement, but Russia can easily handle it.
The British, on the other hand, have bases in both Gibraltar and the Indian Ocean. Because of this, the possibility of provocations cannot be ruled out, especially in the Baltic Sea. There is real paranoia in the Baltics – fortifications are being built along the border, swamps are being drained, and all sorts of measures are being taken. For example, Denmark is practically being superseded by the US in Greenland, but the Danes are criticizing Russia even more. It is as if Russia is taking Greenland, not the US.
London is also behaving this way, not wanting to be weaker than their former colonies, primarily the US.
Nonetheless, despite all the British bravado, on January 23, the Russian oil tanker MT General Skobelev traveled through the English Channel, escorted by the missile corvette Boykiy from the Russian Baltic Fleet, while two British Navy ships, HMS Mersey and HMS Severn, could only watch without attempting to intercept the Russian merchant vessel.
Britain’s political elite and its allies are considering various measures to put pressure on Russia. Ideas about the blockade of Kaliningrad are also emerging, while Britain is still one of the main sponsors of the Kiev regime and the main culprit for prolonging the war in Ukraine. Given this situation, which the Kremlin has not instigated, the most important thing is that the Russian Navy has the strength, capabilities, resources, and everything it needs to protect merchant vessels and tankers from British pirate raids.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Conspiracy Denial
Lies are Unbekoming | January 27, 2026
In honour of Michael Parenti (1933–2026), who passed away on 24 January 2026 at the age of 92. He spent his life naming what power prefers to leave unnamed.
In 1837, Abraham Lincoln remarked: “These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people.”
Today, he would be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
That dismissal—reflexive, automatic, requiring no engagement with evidence—is not a mark of sophistication. It is a tell. The question worth asking is not whether conspiracies exist (they are a matter of public record and a recognised concept in law) but why acknowledging their existence provokes such reliable hostility. What work does the label “conspiracy theorist” actually do?
The late political scientist Michael Parenti spent decades answering that question. His conclusion was blunt: “’Conspiracy’ refers to something more than just illegal acts. It serves as a dismissive label applied to any acknowledgment of ruling-class power, both its legal and illegal operations.” The term functions not as a descriptor but as a weapon—a thought-terminating cliché that protects the powerful from scrutiny by pathologising those who scrutinise them.
Conspiracy denial, in Parenti’s analysis, is not skepticism. It is the opposite of skepticism. It is credulity toward power dressed up as critical thinking. As he wrote in Dirty Truths: “Just because some people have fantasies of conspiracies does not mean all conspiracies are imaginary.”
The Double Standard
The asymmetry is stark once you see it.
Coal miners consciously direct their efforts toward advancing their interests. So do steelworkers, small farmers, and schoolteachers. Labour unions exist precisely because workers concert together to pursue collective goals. No one calls this a conspiracy theory. It is called organising.
But suggest that the wealthy and powerful consciously concert with intent to defend their class interests, and you have crossed an invisible line. You are now a conspiracy theorist, a crank, possibly paranoid.
Parenti put it directly: “It is allowed that farmers, steelworkers, or schoolteachers may concert to advance their interests, but it may not be suggested that moneyed elites do as much—even when they actually occupy the top decision-making posts. Instead, we are asked to believe that these estimable persons of high station walk through life indifferent to the fate of their vast holdings.”
The double standard operates silently. Workers scheme; owners sleepwalk. The public pursues its interests; elites stumble through history moved by forces beyond their comprehension or control. This is the unexamined premise that makes “conspiracy theory” an effective slur.
Consider a specific example. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against “overheating” the economy. This was publicly announced. It appeared in the financial pages. The Fed explicitly stated it preferred a deflationary course that would keep workers competing desperately for scarce jobs.
When an acquaintance of Parenti’s mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically: “Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?”
He did think it. They had said so. It was not a conjecture but a policy announcement. And yet his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of asking: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers.
But where else would people of power get together—on park benches or carousels? Of course they sit in rooms. They sit in boardrooms, in the Executive Office, in the conference suites of the Council on Foreign Relations, at the Bilderberg meetings, in the private gatherings at Bohemian Grove. These venues are not secret. Their existence is a matter of public record. What happens there—the coordination of policy, the recruitment of personnel, the alignment of interests—is simply not supposed to be named for what it is.
Theories of Innocence
If the powerful do not conspire, how do we explain outcomes that consistently favour their interests? In Land of Idols, Parenti identified several frameworks that substitute for analysis. He called them “theories of innocence”—alternative explanations that preserve elite respectability by denying elite intent.
Somnambulist Theory
In Parenti’s words: “Those in power just do things as if walking in their sleep, without a thought to their vast holdings.” Policy happens. Wars break out. Wealth concentrates. No one intended any of it. The rich and powerful are present at these events but somehow not responsible for them—passengers rather than pilots.
Coincidence Theory
Or as Parenti described it: “By sheer chance, things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to maintain the existing array of privileged interests, without any conscious planning or pressure from those who benefit.” Tax policy favours the wealthy—coincidentally. Exposed in a conspiracy, the intelligence agencies coincidentally face no meaningful consequences. Environmental regulations are gutted, and corporations coincidentally profit. The pattern is not a pattern. Each outcome is isolated, unconnected to any larger design.
Incompetence Theory (or Stupidity Theory)
Then there is what Parenti called “incompetence theory, or even stupidity theory, which maintains that people at the top just don’t know what they’re doing; they are befuddled, incapable, and presumably not as perceptive as we.”
For years we heard that Ronald Reagan was a moronic, ineffectual president—his administration a “reign of errors”—even as he successfully put through most of his conservative agenda. Parenti observed: “Reagan was serving the interests of corporate America, the military, and the ideological Right with which he had long been actively associated.” The policies worked exactly as intended for the constituencies they were designed to serve. But acknowledging this would mean acknowledging intent.
During the Iran-Contra hearings, stupidity and incompetence were actually claimed as a defence. The Tower Commission—handpicked by Reagan himself—concluded that the president was guilty of a lackadaisical management style that left him insufficiently in control of his subordinates. In fact, as some of his subordinates eventually testified in court, the president not only was informed but initiated most of the Iran-Contra policy decisions that led to circumvention of the law and the Constitution.
Incompetence theory asks us to believe that those who reach the highest levels of institutional power are less capable of pursuing their interests than the average person managing a household budget.
The pattern Parenti identified with Reagan has repeated with subsequent presidents. Consider which current figures are simultaneously portrayed as existential threats and bumbling fools—and notice that the “incompetence” never works against the interests of capital. The chaos is selective. The stupidity produces coherent outcomes for specific constituencies.
Spontaneity Theory (or Idiosyncrasy Theory)
Stuff just happens. The event is nothing more than an ephemeral oddity, unconnected to any larger forces.
In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that there was more than one assassin—and therefore a conspiracy—involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. In response, the Washington Post editorialised: “Could it have been some other malcontent whom Mr. Oswald met casually? Could not as many as three or four societal outcasts, with no ties to any one organization, have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy?”
The Post continued: “It is possible that two persons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the President at the same time.”
Read that again. A major newspaper, confronted with evidence of conspiracy, speculated that two independent gunmen spontaneously decided to assassinate the president at the same moment. This is what passes for sophisticated analysis when the alternative is following the evidence.
Sometimes, those who deny conspiracies create the most convoluted fantasies of all.
Aberration Theory
Secret, criminal state behaviour is dismissed as an atypical departure from normally lawful behaviour. Each exposure is treated as an isolated exception that proves nothing about the norm.
For five years beginning in 1983, the FBI carried out surveillance of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) to determine whether the group had links to international terrorism. The bureau utilised all fifty-nine of its field offices yet uncovered not a shred of evidence to support its conspiracy theory about CISPES. The organisation charged that the bureau’s actions were politically motivated and part of a concerted government effort to suppress opposition to U.S. involvement in Central America.
The FBI had a long history of such harassments against a wide range of protest groups, as evidenced by its illegal COINTELPRO campaign. Yet the Senate Intelligence Committee found “no pattern of abuse” by the bureau and concluded that the FBI investigation of CISPES was an “aberration.”
Pattern recognition is apparently beyond the capacities of official oversight when the pattern implicates official behaviour.
The Historical Record
The theories of innocence require ignoring what is already known. Conspiracies are not hypothetical. They are documented, exposed, and in many cases admitted.
As Parenti catalogued in Democracy for the Few: “There was the secretive plan to escalate the Vietnam War as revealed in the Pentagon Papers; the Watergate break-in; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) COINTELPRO disruption of dissident groups; the several phoney but well-orchestrated ‘energy crises’ that sharply boosted oil prices in the 1970s; the Iran-contra conspiracy; the savings and loan conspiracies; and the well-documented conspiracies (and subsequent cover-ups) to assassinate President John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X.”
The fabricated Tonkin Gulf incident served as the pretext for escalating the Vietnam War. The Johnson administration told Congress and the public that North Vietnamese boats had attacked American destroyers in international waters. This was a lie. But it worked: Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the war expanded.
Operation Phoenix saw U.S. advisors secretly set up assassination squads that murdered thousands of dissidents in Vietnam. This was not rogue behaviour but policy.
The Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up led to the resignation of a president. The conspiracy was real enough to force Richard Nixon from office.
COINTELPRO involved government surveillance, infiltration, and sabotage of dissident groups across the political spectrum—civil rights organisations, antiwar activists, socialist parties, Black liberation movements. The FBI did not merely monitor these groups; it actively disrupted them, planted false information, fomented internal conflicts, and facilitated violence against them.
Iran-Contra saw top officials conspire to circumvent the law, selling arms to Iran in exchange for funds that were used in covert actions against Nicaragua. Weapons were shipped, money was laundered, and Congress was lied to—all in service of a foreign policy that could not survive public scrutiny.
The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as—in Parenti’s words—”a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery,” the greatest financial crime in history at that point. Thrift industry executives funnelled deposits into personal accounts, fraudulent deals, and schemes involving organised crime and the CIA. When the institutions collapsed, taxpayers covered the losses.
The BCCI scandal involved what investigators called the most crooked bank in the world, with tentacles reaching into intelligence agencies, drug trafficking, arms dealing, and the financing of terrorism.
These are not speculations. They are matters of public record. People went to prison. Documents were declassified. Congressional investigations produced reports. In some cases, the perpetrators wrote memoirs.
If conspiracy is by definition imaginary, what do we call these?
Is It Paranoia?
Those who feel threatened appear paranoid in the eyes of those who deny the existence of threat.
Through most of the 1980s, the United States financed and trained a counterrevolutionary army that conducted a two-front invasion against Nicaragua, killing thousands of civilians and destroying farm cooperatives, power stations, clinics, schools, and other civilian infrastructure. U.S. military planes repeatedly invaded Nicaraguan airspace. U.S. warships stood off both coasts. The superpower imposed a crippling economic embargo, mined Nicaragua’s harbours, and blew up its oil depots.
President Reagan said he wanted the Sandinistas to cry “uncle.” Secretary of State Shultz promised to “cast out” the Sandinistas from “our hemisphere.”
Yet when the besieged Managua government charged that the United States wanted to overthrow it, ABC News dismissed the complaint as “Sandinista paranoia.” The Washington Post called it “Nicaraguan paranoia.”
Then in June 1985, Reagan and Shultz announced that the United States might have to invade Nicaragua—thereby demonstrating, if any more demonstration was needed, that the Sandinistas were not imagining things.
The paranoia charge functions to delegitimise accurate perception. If you correctly identify that powerful actors are working against your interests, you are not credited with insight. You are diagnosed with a mental defect.
This framing has a long history. Critics who noted that television entertainment served capitalist values were dismissed by media scholar Todd Gitlin as “the paranoid left.” It is not paranoid to observe that a capitalist product like entertainment television contains capitalist values. These values saturate advertisements, game shows, and dramatic programming. Corporate advertisers make explicit ideological demands and withdraw their accounts when politically offended. Every network has a department whose function is to censor controversial content. As Parenti noted, the New York Times observed that although networks have relaxed their policing of sexual content, “the network censors continue to be vigilant when it comes to overseeing the political content of television films.”
Evidence of conscious effort exists. The critics are not paranoid. The diagnosis is wrong. What looks like clinical suspicion is pattern recognition.
The Left’s False Dichotomy
Those who analyse capitalism’s systemic features should be most attentive to the conscious actions of capitalists. Often the opposite is true.
Some left intellectuals dismiss conspiracy research as incompatible with structural analysis. The argument goes: either you understand that events are determined by larger configurations of power and interest, or you reduce history to the machinations of secret cabals. Structure or conspiracy. Pick one.
Parenti rejected this dichotomy. In Dirty Truths, he wrote: “It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a ‘conspiracist’ who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces.” This, he argued, is a false choice that disables the left.
Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn both dismissed public scepticism about the Warren Commission’s findings on the Kennedy assassination. Chomsky argued that “no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked” and that “credible direct evidence is lacking.”
Parenti’s response was pointed: Why would participants in a conspiracy of that magnitude risk everything by maintaining an internal record about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many participants would know only a small part of the picture, but all would have a keen sense of the powerful forces they would face were they to become talkative. In fact, a number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths.
Chomsky was able to maintain his criticism, Parenti noted, “only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered.”
The structural-versus-conspiracy framing misunderstands how power operates. Larger structural trends impose limits and exert pressures. But within those limits, different leaders pursue different courses, and the effects are not inconsequential. As Parenti argued: “It was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.”
Structural analysis explains why elites act in certain ways. It does not exempt us from examining how they act in specific cases—including cases where their actions are secret, illegal, and deliberately hidden.
The either-or framing serves power by ruling out of bounds precisely the investigations that might expose specific crimes. If every inquiry into elite wrongdoing can be dismissed as a distraction from structural analysis, then structural analysis becomes a shield for criminals rather than a tool for understanding.
What the Label Protects
Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to prison for committing conspiratorial acts. The concept is not exotic or fringe. It is a standard feature of criminal prosecution.
Ruling elites themselves acknowledge the reality of concerted secret action. They call it “national security.” As Parenti wrote in Land of Idols: “Rulers themselves recognize the need for secret and consciously planned state action. They label it ‘national security.’ … They apply more candidly conspiratorial appellations: ‘covert action,’ ‘clandestine operations,’ and ‘special operations.’ If, for some reason, one prefers not to call these undertakings ‘conspiracies,’ then give them another name, but recognize them as consciously planned, often illegal ventures, whose existence is usually denied.”
The question is not whether conspiracies occur. The question is why naming them provokes such intense resistance.
The label “conspiracy theory” protects something important: the legitimacy of existing arrangements. If policy outcomes that favour the wealthy are the result of deliberate planning by the wealthy, then those outcomes are not natural, not inevitable, and not beyond challenge. They are choices made by identifiable people who could have chosen otherwise and who can be held accountable.
Conspiracy denial forecloses that accountability. It insists that we view history as a series of accidents, blunders, and coincidences—never as the product of will and intention by those with the power to impose their will. It asks us to extend to elites a presumption of innocence so comprehensive that it becomes a presumption of non-existence.
Parenti was clear about what this protects: “Those of us who claim that highly placed parties in the capitalist state mobilize immense resources to preserve and advance the interests of the existing class system would like the courtesy of something more than a dismissive smirk about ‘conspiracy theory.’”
To dismiss as conspiracy fantasy all assertions that elite power is consciously and intelligently exercised is to arrive at an implausible position: that there is no self-interested planning, no secrecy, no attempt to deceive the public, no suppression of information, no deliberate victimisation, no ruthless policy pursuits, no intentionally unjust or illegal gains. It is to assert that all elite interests are principled and perfectly honest, though occasionally confused.
That is a remarkably naïve view of political reality.
A Tool, Not a Conclusion
Not every conspiracy theory is true. Some are baseless. Some are fabricated. Some direct legitimate grievances toward irrelevant foes—which is itself a service to power.
The distinction is not between “conspiracy” and “no conspiracy” but between two different modes of analysis.
The right’s version of conspiracy thinking blames shadowy cabals for corrupting an otherwise pure system. Expose the conspirators, and the system returns to health. This mistakes symptom for cause. As Parenti observed in Land of Idols: “For the left, the monopolization of capital is not necessarily the result of a sneaky plot by some backroom elite; rather the system of capitalism produces monopolies and elites as natural byproducts of its own evolution.” Monopoly capitalism is not a deviation from free-market capitalism imposed by outside manipulators. It is where capitalism goes.
The left’s version asks different questions: What interests are being served? Through what mechanisms? With what documented evidence? This framework opens inquiry into specific influence operations—lobbying networks, foreign policy pressures, supranational trade bodies, revolving doors between government and industry. It examines these as features of how imperial capital organises itself, not as alien corruptions of an otherwise healthy system.
Powerful lobbies exist. Supranational bodies override democratic sovereignty. Intelligence agencies conduct covert operations. Financial interests coordinate policy across borders. These are not speculations but documented realities. Analysis either clarifies how power operates or obscures it by offering scapegoats in place of systemic understanding.
What does the evidence support? What mechanisms are operating? Who benefits, and how?
Conspiracy denial forecloses these questions by stigmatising them. Conspiracy analysis keeps them open by insisting that power be examined rather than assumed innocent.
Lincoln was not a conspiracy theorist in any pathological sense. He was a man with eyes, observing that capitalists act in concert to advance their interests. That observation remains true. What has changed is the machinery for suppressing it.
The next time someone dismisses a claim as “conspiracy theory,” ask what evidence they have engaged with. Ask which theory of innocence they are relying on. Ask whether they would apply the same credulity to the powerful that they extend to the powerless.
The answer will tell you whether you are speaking with a sceptic or a believer—and what, exactly, they believe in.
References
Works by Michael Parenti:
- Against Empire (San Francisco: City Lights Publishers, 1995)
- Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997)
- Democracy for the Few, 7th edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002)
- Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life and Class Power (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1996)
- The Face of Imperialism (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2011)
- History as Mystery (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1999)
- Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993)
- Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994)
- To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (London: Verso, 2000)
Additional sources on conspiracy referenced by Parenti:
- Lane, Mark. Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991)
- Lane, Mark. Rush to Judgment (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)
- Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1989)
- Marshall, Jonathan, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter. The Iran-Contra Connection (Boston: South End Press, 1988)
- Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories after the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (New York: Vintage, 1992)
- Morrow, Robert. First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992)
- Walsh, Lawrence. Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up (New York: Norton, 1997)
Michael Parenti (1933–2026): political scientist, historian, public intellectual. He wrote over twenty books examining American politics, ideology, media, and empire. PhD from Yale University. His work named the operations of class power that mainstream discourse prefers to leave invisible. He died on 24 January 2026 at ninety-two.
Here’s what’s behind the US shift on EU allies
The age of institutions is ending, the age of force is back
By Fyodor Lukyanov | Russia in Global Affairs | January 27, 2026
Even invoking international law has become awkward. Institutions look increasingly irrelevant as political and economic processes unfold demonstrably outside them.
This reaction is understandable. The latest targets of actions that violate the UN Charter and other legal norms are leading Western states, the very countries that dominate the global information space. When similar violations affected others in the past, they were treated as regrettable but secondary. The blame was placed on the moral or political shortcomings of the countries involved, including the victims, rather than on a systemic crisis.
Now the system itself is visibly eroding.
The United States has not only discarded conventions; it has begun applying this approach to its own allies. These are partners with whom it once negotiated as equals, or at least as trusted dependents. Decisions are made as if by divine mandate. The result has been consternation in Western Europe and even accusations of betrayal.
Washington is dismantling the world order it once built and led, an order many already regarded as flawed. Since transatlantic ties formed the backbone of the liberal international system, revising them has become a priority for the United States.
After the Cold War, the balance of power was clear. The US and its allies exercised dominance, enforced a single set of rules, and extracted the political and economic “rent” that came with global leadership. But shifts in global power and structural problems in the capitalist system have reduced those benefits while increasing the costs of maintaining hegemony.
The Biden administration represented a final attempt to repair the old model. Its goal was to recreate an ideologically unified and politically invincible West capable of leading the rest of the world – through persuasion when possible, coercion when necessary. That effort failed.
The new slogan is “peace through strength,” paired with “America First.” This approach is now enshrined in key doctrinal documents, including the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Power – not only military, but financial, technological and political – is placed at the center of policy. The only real constraint is America’s own capacity.
If the previous era was described as a “rules-based order,” the new one might be called a “precedent-based order.” Actions create precedents, and those precedents justify further actions. However, these precedents apply primarily to the United States. Others may behave similarly only when it suits Washington’s interests. The right of other states to act “the American way” is not rejected in principle, but it is tolerated only when they are strong enough and do not challenge US priorities.
This logic extends to allies, who now find themselves in an especially uncomfortable position. Under the previous system, they benefited greatly from American patronage. Chief among these benefits was the ability to minimize their own strategic spending by delegating responsibility to the United States. Washington encouraged this arrangement because it supported the functioning of the global order it led.
Today, what was once portrayed as mutually beneficial partnership is increasingly viewed in the US as an unprofitable subsidy. Washington wants to recover past costs and avoid future burdens. This abrupt shift has shocked its allies, but from a strictly material perspective, the reasoning is not irrational. Even a future change of administration is unlikely to reverse this basic reassessment of alliances.
Against this background, the Board of Peace solemnly announced in Davos can easily be dismissed as Donald Trump’s personal ornament. Yet it is revealing. In a world defined by power, those who lack it must compensate by offering something to those who have it.
The most effective offering is financial tribute, hence the billion-dollar contributions. If that is too costly, enthusiastic displays of loyalty may suffice. Membership in such a body appears to function as a form of political insurance: protection from the chairman’s displeasure.
For large, independent powers, participation is almost impossible. A structure in which rights are explicitly limited by the founder’s will, and where procedures remain unclear, contradicts the very idea of sovereignty. Whether or not the Council works in practice is secondary. Its symbolic meaning is clear: recognition of the White House’s supremacy.
The Trump administration understands that the world has changed and is searching for ways to preserve, or even expand, American advantages. Other major players in the emerging multipolar order must do the same, but in their own interests and according to their own logic.
If Washington openly advocates rational egoism grounded in power, others have little reason not to draw their own conclusions.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
“Leaked document” exposes US blueprint for total control over Gaza
Al Mayadeen | January 27, 2026
A leaked resolution obtained by Drop Site News on Monday exposes the operational blueprint behind US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace,” revealing plans for a US-led administration that would assume sweeping control over Gaza through political domination and security mechanisms designed to engineer a compliant Palestinian population.
The unsigned resolution, dated January 22, 2026, grants the Board “all transitional legislative and executive authority, emergency powers, and the administration of justice” over Gaza. The document formalizes a hierarchical structure with Trump as Chairman holding ultimate authority, an Executive Board with power to rewrite Gaza’s laws, and Palestinians relegated to “technocratic” implementation roles with no decision-making power.
The resolution is part of Trump’s phased ceasefire plan, with the document providing the legal framework for what the administration calls reconstruction, but effectively amounts to permanent subjugation of Gaza under US and Israeli control.
A hierarchy of US power
The “Board of Peace” resolution establishes a three-tier governance structure with Trump as Chairman holding ultimate authority over all decisions affecting Gaza. At the apex, Trump alone can sign resolutions into force, approve military commanders for the so-called International Stabilization Force, and designate individuals to key positions throughout the apparatus.
Beneath Trump sits an Executive Board with “the same authority, powers, and ability to make all delegations necessary and appropriate to carry out the Comprehensive Plan as the Board of Peace.” This Executive Board can “enact new law, or modify or repeal prior” civil and criminal laws in Gaza, effectively rewriting the legal framework governing Palestinian life.
The resolution names nine Executive Board members: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, businessman Mark Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga, Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel, Trump’s chief of staff Susan Wiles, and Martin Edelman, a real estate attorney who serves as special advisor to the UAE government. The inclusion of Wiles and Edelman had not been previously announced.
At the bottom of this pyramid sits the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), essentially a vetted, technocratic, and apolitical committee of Palestinians operating under the supervision of a High Representative. The resolution names former Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov as High Representative, with former Palestinian Authority official Ali Shaath leading the NCAG.
“It’s sadly the case that neither the Board of Peace nor its subordinate structures are representative or accountable,” former UN Under-Secretary-General Martin Griffiths told Drop Site News. Palestinians are “deprived and excluded” from decision-making, appearing only “at the very bottom of this pyramid of power.”
The control mechanisms
The resolution’s language reveals multiple mechanisms through which the Board would exercise total control over Gaza. Section 8.2 establishes that “only those persons who support and act consistently” with creating a “deradicalized terror-free Gaza that poses no threat to its neighbors” will be eligible to “participate in governance, reconstruction, economic development, or humanitarian assistance activities.”
The document bars from participation any individuals or organizations deemed to “have supported or have a demonstrated history of collaboration, infiltration or influence with or by Hamas or other terror groups.” Both the Executive Board and the High Representative will create “eligibility standards for participation in the development of New Gaza” and apply those on a case-by-case basis, subject to Trump’s approval.
Financial, legal control
The resolution grants the Board control over Gaza’s financial infrastructure, including “opening bank accounts and establishing appropriate financial controls” and “engaging donors, approving budgets, and administering financial mechanisms.” All resolutions must also be “issued in English and posted on the Board’s website.”
The Board can “enter into such other agreements, arrangements, or contracts as may be required to implement the Comprehensive Plan,” effectively conducting foreign policy on behalf of Gaza, while Palestinians have no voice. The Executive Board and High Representative possess the authority to “enact new law, or modify or repeal” Gaza’s civil and criminal legal framework as deemed necessary.
Additionally, every resolution requires Trump’s signature to enter force, creating a system where the American president serves as colonial viceroy with absolute veto power over Gaza’s governance.
Stripping Palestinian resistance identity
This vetting mechanism effectively gives the Board power to exclude any Palestinian civil society organization, political faction, or individual deemed insufficiently compliant with US and Israeli objectives. The term “deradicalization,” repeated throughout the document, becomes an all-encompassing tool for political exclusion that goes far beyond security concerns.
In the Palestinian context, “deradicalization” functions as a euphemism for dismantling resistance ideology itself, a fundamental component of Palestinian identity under occupation. Resistance can be understood not merely as armed struggle but as the collective refusal to normalize occupation, the preservation of political consciousness, and the assertion of the right to self-determination. Under occupation, a person’s dignity and worth can only be measured by their steadfastness, their refusal to submit to the erasure of their political rights and national identity.
By making eligibility for housing, employment, reconstruction funds, and basic services conditional on demonstrating “deradicalization,” the Board’s framework seeks to engineer a population willing to accept permanent subjugation in exchange for survival.
Palestinians who maintain resistance consciousness, whether through political organizing, advocacy for refugees’ right of return, or simply refusing to accept normalization with their occupiers, would be systematically excluded from participating in Gaza’s reconstruction.
Questions of legitimacy
The “Board of Peace” resolution obtained by Drop Site News remains unsigned. The Board’s legitimacy rests on UN Security Council Resolution 2803, passed in November 2025, which endorsed Trump’s Comprehensive Plan. However, the structure appears designed to circumvent meaningful UN oversight.
Moreover, it remains unclear whether the resolution obtained has been officially adopted or whether the version received reflects a final text. The resolution explicitly states that its provisions would be “enacted immediately upon signature,” implementing a governance structure over Gaza without the consent of its population.
The architecture described in the document envisions a Gaza divided into controlled zones where Palestinians vetted for political acceptability can access housing, services, and economic opportunities, all while under biometric monitoring, financial surveillance, and educational programming designed to normalize relations with “Israel.”
Those who fail to meet eligibility standards or refuse to participate in the system would presumably remain in the “red zones,” areas that continue to face military strikes and humanitarian deprivation.
Trump wanted to play peacemaker, Netanyahu made sure he failed
By William Van Wagenen | The Cradle | January 27, 2026
“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier.” — US President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address in January 2025.
Within a year, Trump had ordered unprovoked strikes on Iran and Venezuela, and his signature peace deals in Gaza and Syria lay in ruins. In both cases, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posed as a supporter of Trump’s efforts – only to systematically sabotage them from within.
Gaslighting Gaza
During the transition into his second term, Trump’s team played a central role in finalizing a 15 January 2025 ceasefire in Gaza that halted major fighting and secured the phased return of Israeli captives held by Hamas since 7 October 2023. Trump then publicly embraced that outcome during his inauguration, stating: “I’m pleased to say that as of yesterday, one day before I assumed office, the hostages in the Middle East are coming back home to their families.”
The first phase of the deal halted Israeli bombing, saw 33 captives freed, 2,000 Palestinian prisoners released, and allowed humanitarian aid to flood Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians began returning to northern areas. The next phase, which aimed to end the war entirely and release the remaining captives, never materialized.
However, Netanyahu immediately undermined Trump by refusing to authorize his team to negotiate the core elements of phase two of the ceasefire in talks that were supposed to begin on 3 February 2025.
“While Israel signed on to the deal,” the Times of Israel wrote, Netanyahu “refused to even hold talks regarding the terms of phase two.” Instead, he suddenly “insisted that Israel will not end the war until Hamas’s governing and military capabilities have been destroyed.”
As the end of phase one approached, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, tried to salvage the deal by submitting a bridge proposal that would have seen the first phase of the ceasefire extended by several weeks, in exchange for the release of five Israeli captives.
Though Hamas spokesman Abdel Latif al-Qanoua publicly stated the resistance movement “looked at the proposal positively,” Netanyahu rejected this proposal as well, sabotaging Trump’s ceasefire once again.
Instead, on 2 March, one day after the phase two should have begun, Netanyahu finally agreed to extend the first phase for another 42 days, until the end of the Passover holiday.
He sabotaged talks by blockading Gaza, cutting off essentials, and pushing two million Palestinians toward famine. The Trump White House publicly backed Israel’s siege, saying it would “support” the blockade, effectively endorsing the collapse of its own peace initiative.
Netanyahu then put the nail in the coffin of Trump’s plan by unilaterally ending the ceasefire. On 18 March, Israel unleashed a “shock aerial offensive,” killing more than 400 Palestinians, including five senior Hamas officials and many women and children, in just one day.
“We never expected the war to return,” said Ibrahim Deeb, after 35 members of his family were killed in a strike on their home in a neighborhood in Gaza City.
Netanyahu’s actions not only nullified the ceasefire but also openly defied the White House. PBS later confirmed that Israel’s shock offensive in March was the “culmination” of Netanyahu’s “efforts to get out of the ceasefire with Hamas that he agreed to in January,” the agreement Trump had championed.
Netanyahu derails Trump’s 20-point plan
Undeterred, Trump pushed forward a new ceasefire alongside a 20-point peace plan, which took effect on 10 October, and was later passed at the UN Security Council in November 2025. Hamas complied, releasing all captives, alive and dead. Tel Aviv responded by violating nearly every term of the plan.
The ceasefire stated that “all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen.”
However, Israeli bombing continued, killing at least 442 Palestinians over the next four months, including through air strikes, shelling, and gunfire across Gaza. According to The Lancet, the ceasefire barely improved the “horrific” situation in Gaza.
Despite pledging to freeze battle lines, Israel kept bombing Gaza, killing hundreds more. It refused to withdraw from the agreed areas, expanded its military presence west of the so-called “Yellow Line,” and shot Palestinians attempting to return to their homes.
Future phases called for staged withdrawals of Israeli troops to around 40 percent and 15 percent of Gaza’s territory, with the final stage allowing Israel to maintain a security perimeter around the enclave until it is “secure” from any “resurgent terror threat.”
However, over the next four months, Israeli forces refused to withdraw eastward from their positions along the Yellow Line. Instead, they pushed further west, conquering more territory and continuing the systematic demolition of Palestinian neighborhoods, BBC reported, based on satellite images.
Israeli forces also shot and killed Palestinians entering newly seized areas west of the line. In one case, Israeli troops shot and killed 17-year-old Zaher Nasser Shamiya even though he was on the west side of the Yellow Line.
“The tank turned his body into pieces … it came into the safe area [west of the Yellow Line] and ran over him,” his father told the BBC.
Facilitating humanitarian aid?
Trump’s plan also stipulated 600 aid trucks per day. Israel allowed just 171. Washington’s own Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) was ignored by Israeli authorities, who blocked critical items like scalpels and tent poles. As Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council warned, “The credibility of the United States is at stake here.”
On 30 December, Israel undermined Trump’s plan further, barring 37 international NGOs, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Oxfam, and Mercy Corps, from operating in Gaza.
A “Board of Peace” and international force meant to administer Gaza never materialized, as Netanyahu stonewalled amnesty offers for Hamas fighters. Trump hoped to start disarming the resistance with a pilot program, offering fighters safe passage abroad. Netanyahu responded by ordering their assassination.
The destruction of this pilot scheme sealed the fate of Trump’s Gaza project. Without Hamas being disarmed and a civilian authority in place, Trump’s vision of Gaza as a neoliberal “Riviera in the Middle East” collapsed.
Undermining peace in Syria
Netanyahu did not stop at Gaza. In Syria, he again undercut Trump’s attempts at diplomacy.
Both Washington and Tel Aviv supported self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s rise to power in Damascus as part of the CIA’s Operation Timber Sycamore. However, Trump and Netanyahu have pursued different policies toward Syria since Sharaa, the ex-Al-Qaeda leader who went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani, toppled former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.
After Sharaa’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover of the Syrian capital, the Trump administration immediately sought to bolster Sharaa’s legitimacy.
On 20 December, Trump sent Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf to Damascus to meet Sharaa and pave the way for removing his and HTS’s terrorist designations.
While Netanyahu celebrated Sharaa’s entry into Damascus, even taking credit for it, Israel nevertheless began implementing a policy of keeping its northern neighbor “weak and fragmented.”
Israeli forces swiftly launched 480 airstrikes to destroy Syrian military assets and invaded southwest Syria, seizing 155 square miles of territory, including positions atop Mount Hermon, a strategic peak straddling the Syria–Lebanon border.
Despite covertly providing weapons, medical assistance, cash, and even air support to HTS during the 14-year war against Assad, Israeli officials continued to refer to Sharaa as a terrorist in the media after he finally reached power.
Israel also lobbied to keep brutal US sanctions in place, in part through the influence of US Congressman Brian Mast, a dual US-Israeli citizen and former soldier in the Israeli army.
In contrast, Trump promoted Sharaa, granting him a personal meeting in Riyadh on 14 May after calling for the removal of the sanctions the day before.
After the meeting, Trump praised Sharaa, who spent years dispatching suicide bombers to kill civilians in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, describing him as a “young, attractive guy” with a very “strong past.”
Trump soon dispatched his special envoy, Tom Barack, to facilitate a peace agreement between Syria and Israel.
“It starts with a dialogue,” Barrack stated during a visit to Damascus in which he raised the American flag over the US ambassador’s residence. “I’d say we need to start with just a nonaggression agreement, talk about boundaries and borders.”
Trump continued to promote Sharaa in the following months, despite massacring thousands of Alawite civilians on Syria’s coast in March and hundreds of Druze civilians in the country’s southern Suwayda Governorate.
In contrast, Israeli officials continued to undermine Sharaa, calling him a “jihadist terrorist of the Al-Qaeda school” in the press and pledging to defend Syria’s Druze from his Sunni extremist-dominated army, despite Israel’s covert role in “green-lighting” Sharaa’s massacres of both the Alawites and Druze.
However, Trump’s love affair with Sharaa continued in the following months, as Washington continued to lobby Tel Aviv to sign a security agreement with Damascus.
On 17 September, Sharaa said that Syria was seeking “something like” the 1974 Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement concluded after the Yom Kippur War.
Four days later, a senior Trump administration official told Israeli media that such a security agreement was “99 percent” complete. “It’s really a question of timing and also the Syrians communicating it to their people,” the official said.
A five-hour meeting in London between Syrian and Israeli officials “fueled anticipation” that an agreement could be announced later that week, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Tel Aviv kills the deal
While Trump sought a Syria–Israel nonaggression pact, Tel Aviv piled on new demands, including a walled humanitarian corridor for Druze populations and permanent Israeli control of Mount Hermon. Even after Sharaa conceded to key Israeli demands, a planned security agreement collapsed at the last minute.
But Trump continued to support Sharaa, removing him from the Treasury Department’s “specially designated global terrorist list” and welcoming him to the White House on 10 November.
Trump fumed but did not retaliate. When Netanyahu bombed the Beit Jinn in late November, killing 13, Trump urged Tel Aviv to maintain a “strong and true dialogue” with Syria. Netanyahu responded by demanding a demilitarized buffer zone all the way to Damascus – a maximalist condition that ensured no agreement could be signed.
Eventually, a US-mediated mechanism was established for limited security coordination. In return, Washington gave Sharaa a green light to attack Kurdish forces in Aleppo and northeast Syria. Even then, Netanyahu’s sabotage succeeded as the broader Syria–Israel agreement never materialized.
Who’s the superpower?
Asked recently if there were any limits on his power, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
But recent history suggests otherwise. Trump’s ego-driven quest to play peacemaker in West Asia was thwarted not by external enemies but by a supposed ally in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu, by relentlessly undermining two major US-led peace initiatives, exposed a blunt truth about power in Washington.
As former US president Bill Clinton once said after a fraught first meeting with Netanyahu three decades ago: “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”
Idea of limited, fast strike on Iran misjudges our capabilities: IRGC
Al Mayadeen | January 27, 2026
The notion of carrying out a “limited, rapid, and clean” operation against Iran stems from flawed assumptions and a poor judgment of Tehran’s defensive and offensive capabilities, a senior military official at Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) stated in response to threats levelled by the United States and “Israel”.
The official emphasized that the Iranian armed forces “do not monitor enemy movements only during the execution phase; they carefully track early indicators of any threat to the nation’s security.”
“Operational decisions will be made based on field assessments at the appropriate time,” he asserted.
He cautioned that any scenario “designed around surprise or control over the scope of conflict will spiral out of control from the very first stages,” noting that “the presence of US aircraft carriers and military equipment in the region has been exaggerated.”
Highlighting Iran’s strategic advantage in its waters, he said, “The maritime environment surrounding Iran is familiar and fully monitored by the Iranian armed forces. The concentration of forces and equipment from outside the region in such an environment will not serve as a deterrent; rather, it increases their vulnerability and makes them accessible targets.”
The official further asserted that, over recent years, “Iran has relied on its local naval capabilities, its asymmetric defense doctrine, and unique geopolitical strengths, shaping military equations in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman in a way that prevents any aggressor from assuming the security of its forces and bases is guaranteed.”
No attempt to undermine Iran will succeed
Referring to past attempts to influence Iran’s internal affairs or undermine its political structure, he noted that “whether through political and economic pressure, military threats, or psychological warfare, such efforts have always failed, and this flawed approach will not succeed in the future either.”
“Iran will not be the initiator of any war, but it will not allow any threat to its national security to progress to the execution stage, even at its earliest phases,” he stressed.
The official placed full responsibility for any unintended consequences “directly on parties that jeopardize the stability of the entire region, whether through provocative and interventionist presence or through direct and indirect support.”
This closely follows remarks by the head of the Iranian Journalists’ Association and member of the Government Media Council, Masha’Allah Shams al-Wa’izin, who told Al Mayadeen that Washington has conveyed, through a third party, that Iranian facilities could be targeted by attacks, while expecting Tehran to absorb any such strikes “without a severe response.”
Shams al-Wa’izin stressed, however, that from Iran’s perspective, any so-called limited strike would be treated as a full-scale war, dramatically increasing the cost for any potential aggressor. He further claimed that the United States and “Israel” had orchestrated recent events involving armed riots inside the country following what he described as the failure of a 12-day war on Iran.
He also dismissed what he called “conflated and false” reports circulated by opposition groups regarding alleged developments in Iran, saying they originated from “armed opposition based in Tel Aviv and Paris.”
“The United States wants Iran to surrender,” Shams al-Wa’izin said, adding that no self-respecting nation could accept such threats. He described the recent US military buildup in the region as political signaling by President Donald Trump toward Iran’s leadership, while underscoring that Tehran possesses multiple leverage points and capabilities to respond to any form of pressure.
US Military Buildup on Land, Air, and Sea Raises Fears of Imminent Attack on Iran – Expert
Sputnik – 27.01.2026
The US and Israel “have outlined a plan for the next phase in resolving the Iranian issue… The level of military readiness at all levels in Iran is high and has reached a red line,” Lebanese expert Brigadier General Malik Ayub tells Sputnik.
However, Israel is unlikely to participate in a war against the country, Ayub notes. Its involvement would be a “serious mistake,” given its inability to withstand the previous confrontation with Iran.
The expert suggests that if war breaks out, Iran will strike Israel to use it as leverage against the US, and if Israel joins the conflict, the war will be devastating and with unpredictable outcomes.
As for the American military bases in the region, Iran will consider them US territory, not Arab land, Ayub believes.
He also mentions that Hezbollah could use a war as a “golden opportunity” to liberate five positions in southern Lebanon, shifting the balance of power both domestically and internationally.
Speaking about Iran’s allies in the region, Ayub notes that the conflict would threaten the Gulf states’ interests, particularly Saudi Arabia, by jeopardizing the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting access to significant oil supplies and global maritime trade.
WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolution’ to Promote Lab-Grown Meat
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 26, 2026
Participants at last week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) called for a “cultural revolution” to increase acceptance of lab-grown meat — despite the public’s “terrible” resistance to the products, The Blaze reported.
The meeting, held in Davos, Switzerland, brought together leading global political and business leaders.
During the “Food @ the Edge,” panelist Sam Kass, a senior policy adviser for nutrition during the Obama administration, asked about the growth of “replacements” for “core foods.” The former chef said he doesn’t want to see a future “where we’re starting to drink coffee from a factory as opposed to from a tree.”
Andrea Illy, chairman of the Italian coffee giant illycaffè, countered that “there is a terrible cultural resistance from consumers to accept tech foods” but that he believes such foods “represent the way forward.”
Illy, affiliated with the WEF for over a decade, said reducing meat consumption yields environmental and health benefits. He said that “70% of the ecological footprint of agriculture is due to animal proteins.”
Illy claimed “excessive consumption” of real meat products is the leading cause of noncommunicable diseases — the “number one health problem” in the West. He called for the reduction of real meat consumption to a “healthy” level and for a decades-long “cultural revolution” to get people to consume lab-grown meat.
Experts tout benefits of real meat, question safety of lab-grown alternatives
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, hit back at Illy’s claims. Since health officials started recommending less meat — which they blamed for certain health conditions — “we had child obesity rise from 4% to 20%,” Nass said. “Childhood Type 2 diabetes doubled. Adult diabetes and prediabetes skyrocketed.” Nass blamed high carbohydrate consumption for the increase.
“Meat is extremely healthy, especially when animals graze on grasses as they were meant to and when they are not fed antibiotics, hormones and contaminated feed,” Nass said. She said the animal feed used in industrial meat production is typically “drenched with glyphosate or grown on sewage sludge.”
Biologist Heidi Wichmann, Ph.D., a member of Make Europe Healthy Again’s advisory committee, said the primary driver of non-communicable diseases is not meat, “but the way food is produced, treated and disconnected from natural biological cycles.”
“Excessive consumption of biologically degraded, highly processed products is problematic, regardless of whether they are of animal or plant origin,” she said.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said that while animal agriculture is “an ample source of disease variants,” questions remain about the safety of lab-grown meat.
“Lab-grown meat has all the unknowns of any new technology,” Jablonowski said. “In theory, lab-grown food can be healthy. In practice, only if consumers demand it.”
According to Sayer Ji, chairman of the Global Wellness Forum and founder of GreenMedInfo, these unknowns associated with lab-grown meat include “novel risks” that are not fully studied.
“Many products rely on immortalized cell lines, which by definition evade normal cellular aging and death mechanisms — raising legitimate concerns about oncogenic potential and long-term biological effects,” Ji said.
Technologies like this “centralize food production into highly patented, proprietary systems that displace decentralized, local and farmer-based food networks — a shift away from food sovereignty and toward industrial dependency,” Ji said.
WEF calls development of lab-grown meat from stem cells ‘revolutionary’
The WEF last week released a video promoting lab-grown meat produced from animal stem cells, describing the technology as “revolutionary.”
The video featured Singapore-based Shiok Meats, which grows “meat” and “seafood” from animal stem cells. The WEF said Shiok’s technologyoffers “a promising solution to the environmental and ethical concerns associated with conventional animal agriculture.”
Singapore, which approved the sale of lab-grown meat in 2020, is a global leader in promoting alternatives to conventional meat. In 2024, Singapore approved 16 insects for human consumption.
Several experts suggested that the global elite are pushing to reduce meat consumption by suggesting tactics such as making people allergic to red meat, or convincing wealthy countries to switch to “100% synthetic beef.”
“Narratives had to be created by the globalists to demonize meat,” Nass said. “The push for lab-grown meat comes from the desire to control food by central authorities,” who “want food to only come from outside authorities, who can withhold it if you do not comply — or who make it too expensive and control you that way.”
Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, suggested that what “ties all of this together” is “an obsession by what I call the ‘Controligarchs’ — a small, self-appointed elite that believes every aspect of human life must be managed, optimized and ultimately owned by them.”
Seven states, including Florida, Texas and Montana, have banned lab-grown meats. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released new dietary guidelines favoring the consumption of protein, dairy, healthy fats, vegetables and fruit and deemphasizing grains.
Consumers have increasingly rejected alternative meat products. For instance, the stock price of synthetic meat producer Beyond Meat cratered last year, dropping from an all-time high of $240 to less than $1 amid low consumer demand in the U.S.
Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, said, “There is near-zero market demand for this ‘frankenfood’ born of the same intellectual class and lab technicians who have given us poison food and medicine.”
Tucker said producers of synthetic meats “rely on government regulations and restrictions to throttle genuine health and good lives while deprecating what we know is both good for us and delicious.”
WEF: phasing out artificial additives placing ‘stress’ on food industry
Other WEF panelists criticized efforts by the HHS to phase out synthetic dyes and artificial additives in food products.
According to Slay News, Jasmin Hume, founder and CEO of Shiru, an AI-powered “protein discovery company,” said HHS’ recommendations are placing the food industry “under an unprecedented amount of stress.”
Hume claimed removing synthetic ingredients from foods would require significant changes by food manufacturers and would have a negative effect on consumers and the planet.
Nass noted that approximately 10,000 artificial food additives have been approved in the U.S. compared with only about 400 in the European Union. “Companies already know how to produce food without most such additives,” she said.
Slay News reported that Hume’s remarks came as the Trump administration “ramps up its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) crackdown on ultra-processed junk, synthetic additives, and added sugars,” leaving WEF members “scrambling to defend” synthetic food that faces growing public and political resistance.
Mass vaccinations or culls of livestock linked to lab-grown meat agenda
Politico Europe reported Jan. 16 that authorities in Greece are responding to a nationwide sheep pox outbreak with mass culls of sheep flocks — but are facing increasing pressure to engage in mass vaccination of sheep instead.
According to Politico Europe, many Greek farmers are “begging for vaccines to save their flocks.” Mass vaccination was among the demands of farmers who recently protested against Greek government policies by blocking highways throughout the country.
“Sheep pox is so infectious that global farming regulations require whole herds to be slaughtered immediately after even a single case is detected,” Politico Europe reported. The outbreak has resulted in over 470,000 sheep and goats being culled, and the closure of over 2,500 farms in Greece.
The European Union’s Animal Welfare Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi told Greek authorities last year that vaccination is the only new measure that can stop new sheep pox outbreaks.
The Greek government and its advisers have “repeatedly rejected this option, citing the steep financial consequences and damage to exports” and the fact that no sheep pox vaccine has been approved in Greece or the EU, Politico Europe reported.
Regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger, a member of the board of advisers of GMO/Toxin Free USA, said choosing between mass culling and mass vaccination ignores a tried-and-true method in which farmers “let the ones die that are going to die” and use the surviving animals as the “genetic base for building your seed stock.”
“Vaccine-induced immunity does not replicate the breadth, durability, or ecological integration of naturally acquired immunity, which is what inspired the creation of vaccination but has never been effectively replaced by it,” Ji said.
Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, Their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life,” said lab-grown meat and mass culling or vaccination of livestock are part of the “Controligarch worldview.” This includes “centralized control over natural systems in the name of efficiency, safety and sustainability.”
“They seek to replace organic, decentralized life with systems that can be surveilled, patented and governed from the top down,” he 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.
The Board For Peace – Whitewashing Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide
DOC MALIK | January 26, 2026
ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION:
Last week in Davos at the WEF meeting, Trump announced the Board of Peace and the technocratic takeover of Gaza. I break down what this actually means.
This podcast is highly addictive and seriously good for your health.
SUPPORT DOC MALIK
For the full episodes, bonus content, back catalogue, and monthly Live Streams, please subscribe to either:
The paid Spotify subscription here: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show…
The paid Substack subscription here: https://docmalik.substack.com/subscri…
Thank you to all the new subscribers for your lovely messages and reviews! And a big thanks to my existing subscribers for sticking with me and supporting the show!
Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations?
By Samyar Rostami – New Eastern Outlook – January 26, 2026
Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat. Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.
In the national security document published in Trump’s second administration, like the previous two documents, the national defense of the United States is characterized, as it includes the defense of the territory, the defense of the people, the defense of the political system, and the defense of the economy.
Iran’s position was also prominent in previous documents. In that document, the name of Iran was repeated six times, and it was one of the greatest threats to US national security. It was proposed, and in addition, in two other cases, it referred to the threat of Iran.
In the latest document, the number of these references has been reduced to three. In the new document, direct reference to Iran’s nuclear program has been almost eliminated. But the issue and role of waterways is still prominent in this document; in fact, this time the name of the Strait of Hormuz is explicitly mentioned and emphasized in the new document.
The new US national security document depicts Iran in the general framework of “weakening” and does not actually mention Iran as a fundamental threat. But this does not mean that the United States no longer considers Iran a threat.
War or negotiations
The behavior of the Trump administration, namely in recent months, has been not only in rhetoric but also in practice anti-Iranian, from pressuring European governments to activate the snapback mechanism to supporting Israeli military actions, seizing ships suspected of carrying weapons to Iran, and even actions such as seizing ships off the coast of Venezuela.
Given the current state of US-Iran relations, the US has two options: moving towards an agreement or adopting a military option, but Washington’s desire is to stop Iran’s nuclear capability without falling into the quagmire of eternal wars.
The issue of negotiations had been stalled since the 12-day war because Tehran refuses to return to negotiations before receiving the necessary guarantees from the US about not starting another attack against Iran by Israel or the US and having the right to enrich uranium.
Not all Trump officials and aides share the same view and approach, and some believe that negotiating with Tehran will increase Iran’s legitimacy. Within the administration, it seems that some are willing not to move towards a military option before diplomatic solutions are exhausted.
Also, the United States, which previously adopted a policy of “maximum pressure campaign,” still claims to protect the rights of the Iranian people. In this regard, Donald Trump has now imposed a 25% customs tariff on any country that has trade relations with Iran, which could have a negative impact on Iran’s economic relations. Trump also called for illegal actions, including the occupation of government institutions, by asking Iranian protesters to continue the protests and even promised that help was on the way.
The United States is also using the protests inside Iran as a tool to gain more concessions from Tehran in any possible agreement.
Iran’s readiness for diplomacy and defense
Previously, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had emphasized that the United States and the regime would not achieve a different result by repeating the previous failed experience. “Iran is much more prepared than the 12-day war,” he said, adding, “I hope the wise option will be chosen. We will prepare diplomatic and economic options.”
In a situation where an average of $10 billion was allocated annually for the import of basic goods, the government came to the conclusion that economic surgery should be performed in this area; the preferential currency should be eliminated for consumers.
The protests in Iran have been carried out peacefully since early January by a group of people and trades in response to currency fluctuations and the living conditions. The government announced that it recognizes these protests and efforts to address these concerns are ongoing. However, after a week and on January 8-9, the protests by terrorist elements turned into riots in cities, destroying government, public, relief, and mosques.
Iranian authorities have made mass arrests of terrorist elements in team houses and terrorist cells, and they even have documents about the connections between these terrorist elements and the United States and Israel.
In the view of government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani, the peaceful protests of the people were subjected to a terrorist attack. Also, Brigadier General Ahmad Ali Goodarzi, Commander of the Faraj Border Guard, announced the identification and destruction of 3 terrorist teams before they entered the country at the country’s borders and the discovery of weapons and ammunition from them.
Amir Saeed Iravani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Iran in the United Nations, stated in a letter to the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN: “The Islamic Republic strongly condemns the continuous, illegal, and irresponsible behavior of the United States of America in coordination with Israel to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs through threats, incitement, and deliberate encouragement of instability and violence.”
Also, internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable. Apart from the words and positions of the Leader of Iran, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) considered the government’s decision (end of the consumption chain) a courageous act and an important step.
The parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said, “At this time, the responsibility of us as Iranian officials is to confront the enemy in the economic war.”
From the perspective of Hassan Rouhani, if a foreign aggressor wants to abuse the protest within the family, the family members will put aside the difference and break the aggressor’s hand.
In fact, from Tehran’s perspective, Iran is ready for both war and negotiation. That means fair, honorable, and equal negotiations with mutual respect and based on mutual interests are still the priority, not giving orders and dictating. Iran also has preconditions.
Although the US has greatly increased its forces in the region. Iran’s military forces are also at the peak of defensive readiness and are ready to confront any aggression and evil of the enemy against Iran. Therefore, any action must face retaliation from Iran.
The amount of oil sales in the past 14 months in the form of export shipments has been record-breaking. The creation of new restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil does not create any serious restrictions on Iran’s oil sales processes.
Outlook
It seems that the US is paying special attention to shaping a soft transformation and a colorful and internal revolution in Iran, along with hard threats as a means of pressure. But internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable.
Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat. Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.
In the meantime, Washington’s failure in the direction of the hard programs could make the path of interaction or resolution of issues between Iran and the United States, in the new framework, more complex.
Samyar Rostami is а political observer and senior researcher in international relations.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
US pressure contributing to Israeli influence in Latin America: Experts
Press TV – January 26, 2026
US political pressure is contributing to the Israeli regime’s influence across Latin America, even as long-standing regional support for the Palestinian cause continues through diplomatic, legal, and grassroots channels, experts say.
For decades, several left-wing governments in the region shaped their foreign policy around anti-imperialism and de-colonial identity, aligning openly with Palestinian rights, but analysts warn the legacy is now at the disposal of a mix of US interference, far-right political shifts, and economic leverage, the Middle East Eye news and analysis website reported on Monday.
Following the launch of the Israeli regime’s war of genocide on Gaza in October 2023, Brazil’s president verified the nature of the onslaught as being “genocidal,” Colombia suspended diplomatic ties with the regime, and Chile sought accountability for Israeli atrocities at international courts. Yet experts cited by the outlet said Washington has worked to counter that momentum through lobbying, political threats, and direct pressure on outspoken governments.
“Latin American states lack instruments of hard power and are therefore constrained in how they can respond to US pressure,” said Ali Farhat, a Latin American affairs specialist. “That limitation creates openings for Israel to consolidate influence, particularly where governments seek to avoid confrontation with Washington.”
US officials have increasingly framed cooperation with Washington as a test of “security” and “democratic alignment,” while linking regional diplomacy to broader American foreign policy goals that dovetail with closer ties with Tel Aviv.
Argentina has emerged as the clearest example of this shift. Far-right President Javier Milei has announced plans to move the country’s embassy to the holy occupied city of al-Quds and expand security and economic cooperation with the regime, while openly backing its war on Gaza as “legitimate self-defense.”
Last year, Argentina received a $20-billion bailout from Washington, which US President Donald Trump defended as support for a “good financial philosophy,” despite skepticism over its impact on the country.
Farhat said US meddling has reshaped the regional landscape, pointing to Washington’s targeting of Venezuela’s leadership as part of a broader effort to weaken vocal supporters of Palestine.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, long seen as one of the most uncompromising defenders of Palestinian rights in Latin America, was kidnapped by US forces earlier this year and is now standing trial in New York on “drugs, weapons, and narco-terrorism” charges.
“He (Maduro) was among the most uncompromising defenders of Palestine on the continent,” Farhat said. “His marginalization [and now ouster] represents the loss of a fierce advocate for the cause.”
The pundit said Maduro framed the Palestinian struggle as inseparable from anti-imperialism and viewed the US as a colonial power and the regime as an occupying entity backed by it.
Since Trump’s return to office last year, Farhat said, left-leaning leaders have shifted tactics rather than abandoning Palestine, opting for recalibration over confrontation, but far-right governments have accelerated alignment with both Washington and Tel Aviv.
As of 25 January, Argentina is the only Latin American country to have agreed to join Trump’s controversial “Board of Peace” initiative in Gaza, which describes itself as an international organization seeking to promote stability and secure “peace.”
Nilto Tatto, a congressman from Brazil’s Workers’ Party, urged Latin American governments to reject the board and any initiatives undermining Palestinian rights.
“Any framework managed by Washington would not serve peace so much as reproduce hegemony under an international guise,” Tatto said.
“Brazil, evidently, cannot take part in a process whose outcome is already predetermined, namely one that focuses on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip only to then keep the territory under US control.”
Julia Perie, a former Argentine lawmaker, said Argentina’s shift reflected ideological realignment.
“Argentina’s position is part of a geopolitical vision that prioritizes alignment with the United States,” said Perie.
She added that Latin American solidarity with Palestine has always been cyclical. “This is another phase in a longer historical transformation, not the end of solidarity.”
‘Recalibration not abandonment’
Amid the situation, observers noted, support for Palestine in countries facing mounting political pressure was increasingly being channeled through legal action, multilateral institutions, and popular movements rather than overt diplomatic confrontation.
Ramon Medero, president of Venezuela’s La Danta TV, said the current moment represented adaptation, not retreat.
“It is difficult to argue that the Palestinian cause has suffered a decisive blow,” Medero said.
“What we are seeing is a repackaging of escalation through legal and multilateral avenues to reduce the costs of sanctions and backlash.”
Medero added that the Palestinian cause was now embedded in a broader Global South struggle.
“The Palestinian cause has become a structural symbol of liberation, sovereignty, and self-determination,” he said. “What is shifting is agency – away from governments and toward popular consciousness.”
He added that far-right advances could intensify grassroots mobilization.
China Rejects U.S. Claims of Coercion in Central America
teleSUR | January 26, 2026
On Monday, Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, rejected U.S. accusations of alleged Chinese “coercion” and “interference” in Central America.
His remarks came after Rep. John Moolenaar, chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on China, traveled to several Central American countries to counter Chinese influence and question the involvement of Asian companies in strategic sectors such as the operation of ports linked to the Panama Canal.
In response, Guo described the U.S. claims as “complete lies and fallacies,” saying they reflect ideological bias and a Cold War mentality. “China firmly opposes certain U.S. politicians interfering in the normal relations between Central American countries and China,” the Chinese diplomat said.
He also stressed that the Chinese foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean is based on principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, mutual benefit, openness and inclusiveness, and cooperation aimed at shared development.
According to Guo, relations between China and Central American countries have produced tangible benefits for local populations, particularly in areas such as infrastructure, trade, logistics connectivity, productive investment, and technology transfer.
China maintains that its presence in Central America is not aimed at political domination but rather at a model of South-South cooperation that has been “well received by the countries involved.”
Guo urged U.S. politicians to stop instrumentalizing China-related issues for geopolitical purposes and to focus their efforts on initiatives that contribute to regional development. In multiple international forums, China has reiterated its rejection of bloc-based thinking and confrontation, advocating for a multipolar international order based on multilateralism and respect for state sovereignty.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump released the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which prioritizes strengthening his country’s influence in Latin America and the Caribbean and seeks to reconfigure strategic control over key trade corridors such as the Panama Canal.
Featured Video
IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The great ADHD swindle
By Daniel Ken | TCW Defending Freedom | May 20, 2023
Over more than two decades in the classroom I’ve taught thousands of children and teenagers: some were lovely and lots were hard-working. On the other hand, quite a number were disruptive and argumentative, and a number were violently opposed to learning. But I don’t think I’ve taught more than a handful of kids who could be properly described as having the symptoms of ADHD. And that handful could just as easily have had something else wrong with them. Because here’s the thing: despite the fact that the best part of a million children are medicated for the condition, ADHD doesn’t exist.
There’s no definitive medical test for it, experts can’t agree on what it actually means, and most of the symptoms disappear if the child in question has lots of exercise, good diet and, crucially, a set of clear behavioural boundaries, preferably set early in childhood and, for the boys at least, enforced by a stable adult male living at home. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
- Zelensky threatens to attack Belarus
- UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones
- ‘Biased censorship’: Iran deputy FM slams X for stripping him of blue tick
- Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel has 60 days to withdraw from Lebanon
- Iran rules out IAEA inspections of war-damaged nuclear sites
- Israeli regime’s only interest is ‘permanent war,’ Iran’s FM Araghchi says
- Syria, Lebanon, and the limits of power
- How Multipolarity Forced Trump to Capitulate… For Now
- Switzerland confirms US-Iran talks planned for Friday are cancelled
- If Americans Knew
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- Greek Orthodox Patriarchate denounces Israeli seizure of church land in Jerusalem
- How Hillel International uses antisemitism training and ‘campus climate’ concerns to attack Palestine solidarity
- Old Iraq war architects rise up against Trump’s Iran deal
- Unmasking Axios, its Israeli ties and agenda
- Israel Is Bleeding Support in the U.S. – and Pouring Tens of Millions Into Trying to Change That
- Israeli army included on UN blacklist for 3rd year over ‘grave violations’ against children
- Trita Parsi on the Iran deal, Israel, and how Iran has been a ‘cash cow’ for AIPAC
- JD Vance speaks truth to Israel: “You can’t just kill your way out of every problem” – Daily Update
- What Ceasefire? Israel Has Now Killed Over 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza Since October
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
Aletho News 