TEHRAN – Tehran will mine all sea lanes in the Persian Gulf in the event of an attack on the coast of the country or islands, the Iranian Defense Council said on Monday.
“We remind you that in the event of any attempt by the enemy to attack the coast or islands of Iran, all sea lanes in the Persian Gulf, as well as the coast, will be mined,” the council said in a statement, as quoted by the Fars news agency.
The passage through the Strait of Hormuz is possible only for countries that are not hostile to Iran, if this issue is coordinated with Tehran, the statement added.
The United States sees no alternative to conducting a ground military operation to capture Iran’s Kharg Island and is accelerating troop deployments to the region, Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post reported earlier, citing sources familiar with the matter.
On March 20, Axios reported that US President Donald Trump is prepared to seize Kharg Island to pressure Tehran into opening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
A US official told the newspaper that “the US military has accelerated the deployment of thousands of Marines and Navy personnel to the Middle East.”
On March 22, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that all options remained on the table and did not rule out the possibility of sending US troops to the Iranian island.
US President Donald Trump announced Monday that he has postponed military strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days, claiming that Washington and Tehran have held “very good and productive conversations” over the past two days toward resolving the war.
The announcement came hours before a deadline Trump had issued on Saturday, in which he threatened that Iranian power plants would be destroyed if Tehran failed to “fully open” the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping within 48 hours, prompting a swift and decisive warning by Tehran that power infrastructure feeding US bases and “Israel” in the region would be targeted.
Iran denies direct talks
After Trump’s statements, Iranian officials swiftly rejected claims of direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington.
Iran State TV, citing the Foreign Ministry, reported: “There are no talks between Tehran and Washington.”
The Foreign Ministry further characterized Trump’s remarks as an attempt to manipulate global energy markets and buy time for his military plans.
“Yes, there are initiatives from some countries in the region to de-escalate tensions, and our response to all of them is clear: we are not the party that started this war, and all such requests should be directed to Washington.”
Context: IRGC warned Trump of consequences
The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement earlier today rejecting accusations by US President Donald Trump that Iran intends to target desalination facilities across the region, warning instead of reciprocal measures if Iranian infrastructure is struck.
The IRGC accused Washington of initiating the war, stating that “the aggressive American army… began the war by killing children,” saying that 180 children were killed in attacks on primary schools and that five water facilities, including a desalination plant on Qeshm Island, had already been targeted.
The statement firmly denied targeting civilian water infrastructure, asserting that “the IRGC has not carried out such actions.”
Addressing recent threats against Iranian energy infrastructure, the IRGC warned that any strike on power facilities would trigger direct retaliation.
“What we have done is declare our position: if power plants are targeted, Iran will respond by targeting the power infrastructure of the occupying entity, as well as power plants in regional states that supply electricity to US bases, in addition to economic and industrial infrastructure and energy sectors in which Americans hold shares. Without doubt, we will do so.”
The statement further added that economic and energy infrastructure linked to US interests would also be considered targets.
Emphasizing its prior restraint, the IRGC noted, “You targeted our hospitals – we did not respond in kind. You targeted relief centers – we did not respond. You targeted our schools – we did not respond. But if you target electricity, we will target electricity.”
The statement concluded with a warning that Iran would respond to any escalation “at a level that ensures deterrence,” adding that “the United States does not know our capabilities, it will see them on the battlefield.”
Seyed Mohammad Marandi discusses the targeting of nuclear plants, desalination plants, critical infrastructure, and the civilian population. Trump has given Iran 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz (capitulation), otherwise the US will destroy Iran’s energy facilities. Then there will be no limits on Iran’s response, and the consequences will be global. The future of global stability will be decided over the next few days. Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team.
The case of the Russian LNG tanker Arctic Metagaz, which, after being struck by a Ukrainian drone, is now adrift uncontrolled off our coast, with a cargo of liquefied natural gas, is emblematic of Italy’s predicament, caught between two wars – one in Europe and the other in the Middle East – both provoked by the same power politics pursued by the United States and its allies.
The WWF announced that it is closely monitoring the Russian LNG tanker Arctic Metagaz, which is adrift in the Strait of Sicily following a series of explosions that occurred between 3 and 4 March. The vessel, which is unmanned and out of control, is carrying an extremely dangerous cargo of approximately 900 tonnes of diesel and over 60,000 tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG). A potential spill – warns the WWF – could cause fires, lethal cryogenic clouds and widespread, long-lasting pollution of the water and the atmosphere. The environmental risk is very high and potentially irreversible, with serious repercussions for the economies of the Pelagie Islands, which rely on fishing and tourism. The gravity of the situation is confirmed by the fact that Italy, France and seven other countries have called for prompt action by the European Commission.
What caused this disaster?
Alfredo Mantovano, Undersecretary to the Prime Minister, stated in an interview that it was an “accident involving the Russian vessel”. The government is thus attempting to conceal the true cause: as we reported in Grandangolo on 6 March and as the photos of the wreck show, the Russian vessel Arctic Metagaz was struck by a Ukrainian naval drone launched from Libya.
A genuine act of international terrorism that exposes Italy and other European countries to extremely serious risks – the very same countries that are arming and financing Ukraine for the war against Russia: the thermal content of the ship, which could end up on our shores, is equivalent to that of almost 50 Hiroshima bombs, not counting radioactivity. (See the well-documented articles by Prof. Francesco Cappello on www.pangeanotizie.it).
The story of this veritable ticking time bomb, drifting unchecked in the Mediterranean off our coast, is emblematic of the situation in which Italy finds itself caught between two wars – one in Europe and the other in the Middle East – both triggered by the same power politics pursued by the United States and its allies. Not only do these expose us to growing risks, including the threat of nuclear war, but they are also having an increasing impact on our living conditions. The war against Russia and now that against Iran are causing a sharp rise in energy prices, with serious economic and social consequences. The Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field in Iran, the largest in the world, and Iran’s subsequent retaliation, have sent oil and gas prices soaring.
Italy, which is already effectively participating in the war against Russia despite officially denying it, is now also taking part in the war against Iran, again under US command. US Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton drones regularly take off from the Sigonella naval air base (Sicily) for operations in the Persian Gulf against Iran. Italian forces are stationed in Kuwait alongside US forces, equipped with MQ-9 Reaper drones (one of which was destroyed by an Iranian attack) and Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets. At the same time, an Italian Navy missile frigate, the Federico Martinengo, forms part of the naval battle group accompanying the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean as part of the war against Iran.
Iran carried out missile strikes on Israeli towns of Dimona and Arad on March 21.
Air defense systems like THAAD and Iron Dome may be highly capable but they still struggle with combined missile and drone attacks from multiple directions, Imad Salamey, associate professor at the Lebanese American University, tells Sputnik.
“The vulnerability exposed here is not a single system failure, but the limits of even advanced layered defenses when overwhelmed by scale, coordination, and mixed attack profiles,” he explains in the wake of Iranian strikes against Dimona and Arad.
The cost of US missile defenses’ failure
The exposed weakness of the US missile defenses carries significant strategic implications for the Middle East, Salamey notes, as such weapons are widely used to protect US assets across the region.
The US opponents now see that missile and drone tech offer a cost-effective way to fight “technologically superior opponents” while the United States could be forced to reassess its force posture and “invest in more integrated defense architectures.”
What Iran’s control of Israeli airspace could mean
If Iran shows that it can strike high-value targets in Israel repeatedly, it would shift the dynamics of this conflict, Salamey adds. By thus imposing higher costs on Israel and compounding its “freedom of action,” Iran may either push the conflict toward either escalation or “toward indirect negotiation, as both sides weigh the rising risks and diminishing returns of continued attacks.”
Sources speaking with CBS News said that military commands submitted specific requests to prepare for a ground invasion of Iran.
The US deployed a second Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) to the Middle East last week, the sources explained. The USS Boxer will join the USS Tripoli in the region for a potential ground invasion of Iran. The Department of War is also preparing to deploy portions of the 82nd Airborne.
Axiosreported on Friday, speaking with sources who said President Donald Trump is considering an occupation or blockage of Iran’s Kharg Island. The oil facilities on the island, which is located 15 minutes from the mainland in the Persian Gulf, handle 90% of Iran’s oil exports.
“He wants Hormuz open. If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that’s going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that’s going to happen. But that decision hasn’t been made,” a senior administration official told the outlet.
Trump is also threatening to escalate attacks on Iran’s power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Republic said it will respond with strikes on civilian infrastructure across the region and the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel’s military chief Eyal Zamir said that the war was at its “halfway point.” On Saturday, an Iranian missile hit Dimona, the city where Israel bases its secret nuclear weapons program. Following the attack, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the US and Israel would “intensify” and “significantly increase” their strikes on Iran in the coming week.
The US defenses are “bloated” in Israel, while also spread across the Gulf countries to protect American bases, so they can’t intercept all the Iranian drones and missiles, former colonel of Pakistan’s Air Force Sultan M. Hali tells Sputnik, commenting on recent Iran’s strikes against Dimona and Arad.
“US defense systems… are mostly 20th Century defense systems. What Iran is using is the 21st Century systems for which the Americans and the Israelis were not prepared,” he says.
Iran is launching volleys of drones and missiles simultaneously, which overwhelms Israeli defense systems like the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and THAAD, the expert explains.
Another aspect is that the IRGC missiles use low or evasive trajectories to exploit the blind spots of Israeli radars, he adds.
“Even advanced systems, they struggle against massed coordinated attacks, especially when the attackers combine cheap drones with precision missiles,” Hali says.
The effects of Iran getting limited dominance over Israeli skies can be divided into three points, he explains.
Psychological effect — Iran proved it can penetrate Israeli defenses, which undermines Israel’s deterrence and enhances Iranian negotiations position.
Operational leverage — Israel is forced to relocate its resources to defense instead of offensive actions.
Conflict trajectory shift — Israel will try to hit Iran harder to retaliate, but should expect to face high costs.
Iraqi resistance factions targeted the US Victoria Base near Baghdad airport in at least eight separate rocket and drone strikes, just days after video footage showed the site engulfed in flames as a result of non-stop attacks.
“Eight separate attacks, carried out until dawn with rockets and drones, targeted the US center,” a senior Iraqi security source told AFP on 22 March.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq coalition announced on Sunday morning that its fighters carried out 21 operations over the past 24 hours, “using dozens of drones and missiles to target US occupation bases in Iraq and across the region.”
The US Victoria base – located near Baghdad airport – has come under continuous attacks by the Iraqi resistance since the start of Washington and Tel Aviv’s brutal war against Iran. The site serves as a US military logistical center.
Footage from after an Iraqi resistance operation on Friday showed the US Victoria base engulfed in large flames.
Other targets which have come under heavy attack by the Iraqi resistance include Washington’s Harir base and the US embassy compound in Baghdad.
After several heavy strikes on the embassy building since the start of the month, leading Iraqi resistance faction Kataib Hezbollah said on 19 March that it “issued orders to suspend operations targeting the US Embassy in Baghdad for a period of five days,” warning that “the response will be immediate” if its terms are violated.
The terms demand that Israel “cease the destruction and bombardment of the southern suburbs in Beirut,” and include calls for “a commitment to not bomb residential areas in Baghdad and the provinces,” as well as “the withdrawal of CIA elements from their positions and keeping them inside the embassy.”
Two days earlier, a top Kataib Hezbollah official was assassinated in a US-Israeli airstrike.
Deadly air raids against Iraq have been ongoing since the Iraqi resistance intervened in the war and began striking US targets in response to the brutal US-Israeli campaign against Iran.
US dirty war Iran has come under renewed scrutiny following explosive admissions by Joe Kent, the former Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). In a recent interview on The Scott Horton Show, Kent detailed how Washington employed radical Sunni extremist groups as proxies to undermine Iranian influence across the Middle East.
Kent, a decorated Special Forces veteran and former CIA officer appointed under the Trump administration, described the strategy as a deliberate “dirty war”. He asserted that the Pentagon armed and strategically supported salafist mercenary elements—including factions linked to Al Qaeda and eventually ISIS—primarily in Syria.
The goal, according to Kent, centered on weakening governments and movements aligned with Tehran. “We did it because Assad was a friend of Iran, helping Hezbollah and Hamas from Syria,” he stated. The US relied heavily on the most radical Sunni elements as proxies, even as moderate groups like the Free Syrian Army existed on paper.
This approach directly contradicted Washington’s public narrative of unwavering opposition to terrorism. By bolstering these groups, US policy contributed to instability that later justified prolonged military interventions, airstrikes, and bases across West Asia.
Kent explained that logistical and strategic support flowed to these actors in anti-Assad operations. When ISIS expanded into a self-proclaimed caliphate, the same dynamics forced US re-engagement—often alongside Shiite militias previously targeted—to dismantle it.
US Dirty War Iran Strategy and Contradictions Exposed
The revelations highlight a pattern of using ideological extremists to advance geopolitical aims against the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. Kent emphasized that radical Sunni factions received backing precisely because they opposed Shiite-aligned forces supported by Iran.
This proxy model allowed plausible deniability while eroding adversaries. Once groups grew too powerful or uncontrollable, Washington pivoted to counter them—creating cycles of intervention that sustained military presence and defense budgets.
Kent linked these tactics to broader regional objectives. By targeting Syrian sovereignty, the US aimed to sever logistical lifelines to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, thereby isolating Iranian regional influence.
The former official rejected characterizations of his statements as conspiracy theories. He maintained that documented patterns—arming rebels who included jihadist elements—aligned with strategic imperatives rather than counterterrorism purity.
His comments gain added weight given his insider perspective. Kent oversaw global threat analysis at NCTC before resigning recently over opposition to the ongoing US-Israel offensive against Iran.
The US dirty war Iran revelations carry far-reaching consequences for West Asia and global security norms. By admitting strategic reliance on extremist proxies, Kent’s account challenges the moral legitimacy of US-led interventions framed as anti-terror campaigns.
In the region, it fuels distrust toward Western policies among populations long affected by proxy-fueled violence. It strengthens arguments from Iran, Syria, and allied resistance movements that foreign aggression—often cloaked in humanitarian or counterterrorism rhetoric—prioritizes Israeli security interests over regional stability.
Globally, the disclosures erode confidence in multilateral counterterrorism frameworks. They highlight risks of blowback when states weaponize ideological radicals, potentially inspiring similar tactics elsewhere and complicating genuine anti-extremist cooperation.
The timing—amid active US-Israel operations against Iran—amplifies calls for accountability and diplomatic off-ramps. It underscores how proxy strategies can prolong conflicts, drain resources, and hinder paths to negotiated settlements in a multipolar world.
Kent’s Resignation and Pressure from Israel
Kent’s public stance ties directly to his resignation from NCTC. In a letter to President Trump, he stated he could not in good conscience support the Iran war, asserting “Iran posed no imminent threat” and that the conflict stemmed from “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
He described a misinformation campaign by high-ranking Israeli officials and influential US media figures that shifted policy away from restraint. Kent praised Trump’s first term for avoiding endless wars but criticized the current trajectory as misaligned with national interests.
His departure marks the highest-level internal dissent yet over the Iran offensive. It exposes fractures within the administration and broader Republican coalition regarding foreign entanglements.
Kent’s interview reinforces that current actions against Iran continue a long-standing pattern. By prioritizing Israeli strategic goals—curtailing Iranian support for regional allies—Washington has repeatedly employed contradictory tactics that undermine its own stated principles.
As debates intensify, these admissions serve as a critical reminder of proxy warfare’s hidden costs. They prompt reflection on whether security is enhanced or eroded when states outsource violence to ideological extremists in pursuit of geopolitical advantage.
Bahrain’s government has admitted that a US Patriot air defense system was involved in the March 9 interception over the Sitra residential area that left dozens of civilians injured, Reuters reported.
This admission directly refutes the account offered by US Central Command, which had attributed the casualties to an Iranian drone strike.
In a statement to Reuters, a Bahraini government spokesperson said the Patriot system intercepted an Iranian drone, insisting that the operation “prevented a drone strike and saved lives.”
CENTCOM had previously maintained that an Iranian drone directly struck a residential neighbourhood. Bahrain’s admission that a Patriot missile was involved now places both accounts in open contradiction with the footage and with each other.
Video published by Drop Site News shows an air-defense interceptor descending following a failed interception attempt, with an impact occurring off-camera shortly afterward. The images strongly suggest it was the interceptor, not an Iranian drone, that struck the residential area, injuring 32 civilians, including children, with four reported in critical condition.
Whose lives were being saved?
The Iranian missiles and drones at issue were directed at US military bases in Bahrain, installations that a significant portion of the Bahraini population regards as an occupying presence, which secures the authoritarian order and is complicit in the genocide in Gaza and the war waged on Iran and Lebanon.
Had those bases not existed on Bahraini soil, no Iranian missile would have targeted Bahrain, and no Bahraini civilian in Sitra would have been injured. The only lives the Patriot system could plausibly claim to have saved were those inside the bases themselves, the very presence most Bahrainis have long demanded be ended.
Death penalty for documenting the damage
Rather than launching an independent inquiry into how a US missile system came to strike a residential neighbourhood, Bahraini authorities have moved to prosecute those who documented the aftermath.
The kingdom’s Public Prosecution is seeking the death penalty for several citizens charged with photographing locations where photography is allegedly prohibited, in what prosecutors framed as “high betrayal”.
During court proceedings, they described the situation as “brutal Iranian aggression” and called for “maximum penalties, without the slightest mercy,” specifying that this meant capital punishment.
162 arrested, crackdown still ongoing
According to the Prisoners Affairs Authority in Bahrain, 162 citizens, including men and women, have been detained since the onset of the US-Israeli war on Iran, with only five released as of March 18.
Detentions have targeted citizens who filmed Iranian strikes on US military bases in the region, individuals who publicly expressed solidarity with those operations, as well as citizens who participated in peaceful protests denouncing the war and the assassination of martyred Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei.
The Prisoners’ Affairs Authority warned that the documented figure almost certainly undercounts the actual number of arrests, as raids and detention operations were still ongoing at the time of reporting.
US President Donald Trump’s brazen military assault on Iran – launched at the behest of the Israeli regime – lays bare an unvarnished truth: Zionist interests have effectively captured American foreign policy.
Broader imperial objectives have been sidelined in favor of the settler colony’s agenda.
A group of analysts continues to cling to the notion that the Zionist entity functions as a strategic asset – a forward outpost – for the American Empire. Yet the coordinated strikes on Iranian soil tell a different story. Far from acting as a subordinate ally, Tel Aviv now dictates the terms, with Washington following suit.
This is no simple case of the tail wagging the dog. More accurately, the agents of the tail have not merely tugged at the leash; they have colonized and captured the vital organs of the dog itself, steering the body of American policy toward unnecessary wars that serve a singular, foreign interest over its own imperial interests.
Trump’s claim of imminent Iranian threat
Trump justified the unprovoked and illegal aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran by citing advice from key advisers who convinced him that an attack from Iran was imminent.
In a candid statement captured on video, Trump declared the situation had approached a “point of no return,” based on intelligence from his inner circle. As he explained, the US found it “intolerable,” with figures like Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio insisting that Iran planned to strike the US.
“In my opinion, based on what Steve and Jared and Pete and others were telling me, Marco is also involved, I thought that they were going to attack us. I thought they would. If we didn’t do this at the time we did it, I think they had in mind to attack us,” he claimed.
This narrative framed the February 28, 2026, assault, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, as a “defensive” measure. Trump reportedly ordered the operation while aboard Air Force One, with missiles and drones hitting the residences of senior Iranian leaders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in the initial barrage.
The assault soon escalated into full-scale war, with civilian casualties mounting, including a strike on an elementary school in Minab, a town in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province, that killed at least 153 people, mostly children. As even CNN noted, video footage showed a US Tomahawk missile striking the school, contradicting Trump’s claims of Iranian hand.
Trump’s rationale hinged on perceived threats, yet evidence points to manipulated intelligence. The assault aligned closely with the Zionist entity’s strategic aims, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes while bolstering its regional dominance.
Exposé on assassination plots
American journalist Max Blumenthal reported about Trump’s belief that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps orchestrated the two assassination attempts against him in 2024.
As Blumenthal reported in The Grayzone, the FBI manipulated evidence on alleged assassination plots to convince Trump that Iran sought to kill him, while Israel and its allies exploited his fears to maintain pressure for a full-fledged war.
Trump feared for his life even before the attempts, with claims of Israeli agents planting devices in Secret Service vehicles during Netanyahu’s White House visits.
Blumenthal’s analysis details how the FBI, in coordination with Israeli intelligence, tied Tehran to the plots despite lacking evidence. Trump publicly linked the attempts to Iran, drawing from US intelligence briefings and DOJ charges against alleged IRGC members.
Such manipulation exploited Trump’s vulnerabilities, pushing the US into a direct confrontation with the Islamic Republic to serve Zionist interests. This underscores how external forces shaped the decision, far beyond genuine US imperial concerns.
Trump’s advisers form a network deeply embedded in Zionist advocacy, blending Jewish Zionists with fervent non-Jewish supporters of the settler colony.
Here are the four specifically named as advising the attack on Iran.
Marco Rubio: A non-Jewish Cuban-American, Rubio has long championed the Zionist cause. As AJC’s Jewish Political Guide reports, he opposed the anti-Israel boycott and divestment campaign, backed the US embassy move to occupied al-Quds, and supported anti-BDS legislation. His funding from pro-Zionist donors like Norman Braman highlights this alignment.
Pete Hegseth: A Christian Zionist, Hegseth robustly backs the Israeli regime. During his confirmation, he declared his Christian faith drives support for the Zionist regime’s “defence”. His church ties to Reconstructionist principles reinforce this theological Zionism.
Jared Kushner: An Orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Kushner shaped Trump’s West Asia policy. Raised in a family steeped in Holocaust survival, he authored the Abraham Accords, normalising ties between the Zionist entity and Arab states. His pro-Zionist stance is evident in unwavering advocacy.
Steve Witkoff: A staunch Jewish real estate mogul, Witkoff staunchly supports Netanyahu and the Zionist colony. As Al Jazeera profiles, he negotiated Gaza deals for Trump, ignoring Shabbat to push agendas.
These Zionist figures, central to Trump’s decision to attack Iran in the middle of indirect nuclear talks, illustrate deep Zionist penetration into US power structures.
Extended Zionist network in Trump’s orbit
Beyond the core quartet mentioned above, Trump’s circle brims with many other Zionist influencers. Here are a few of them who influence him and his policies:
Mike Waltz: Non-Jewish but pro-Zionist, Waltz discussed strikes with Netanyahu. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, he praises Israeli operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them as fighting America’s enemies.
Elise Stefanik: Non-Jewish, Stefanik earned Zionist acclaim for grilling university presidents on antisemitism. She received the so-called “Defender of Israel Award” and nearly $1 million from the notorious pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, affirming Israel’s biblical right to the occupied West Bank.
Mike Huckabee: A Christian Zionist, Huckabee rejects Palestinian statehood and has backed the ongoing genocide in Gaza. He told senators he supports the occupied West Bank annexation, viewing it as biblical Judea and Samaria.
Stephen Miller: Controversial Jewish supremacist whose hardline immigration policies drew some Jewish criticism. Yet his role in Trump’s pro-Zionist moves, like the embassy shift, aligns with the Zionist entity’s interests.
Howard Lutnick: A Jewish billionaire, Lutnick champions the Zionist cause. As Jewish Insiderreports, he has donated over $1 million to the racist Birthright programme and has also supported the genocidal Chabad cult.
Miriam Adelson: An Israeli-American Jewish philanthropist, Adelson donated millions to Trump with caveats like embassy relocation. As reported, she pushed for recognition of the Golan Heights occupation.
Zionist footprint beyond Epstein shadows
Trump’s war of aggression against Iran transcends US imperial interests. It expresses a complete and official capture by Zionist forces. His advisers’ backgrounds reveal a cabal prioritising the settler colony’s expansion over American strategy.
Even without the Epstein leaks dangling like a sword of Damocles over his head, Trump appears as Zionism’s plaything, executing policies that entrench occupation and support Zionism’s maximalist and genocidal expansionism.
State capture of the US apparatus of power is in itself an indication that the Zionist ambitions go much further than the so-called “Greater Israel” project, as they push towards becoming an empire. I have called this Pax Judaica. Netanyahu, for his part, has described his view that the Zionist entity is becoming “in many respects a global superpower”.
How Zionists infiltrated US power system
Those who argue that the metaphorical tail (the Zionist colony) doesn’t wag the metaphorical dog (US Empire) fail to account for the process of infiltration, which the Zionists have been engineering for many decades, since before the creation of their so-called “Jewish State”.
Infiltration is, as I have documented elsewhere, a “cardinal” function of the Zionist movement. In the case of the United States, Zionist agents have become embedded in US national security institutions.
It’s not that the tail wags the dog, so much as agents of the tail have infiltrated and taken control of the vital organs of the dog. They wield influence, enabling the settler colony’s dominance in US decision-making, and they have done so for decades.
How did this happen? We examine the roots.
The architect: James Jesus Angleton’s CIA legacy
James Jesus Angleton, as CIA counterintelligence chief from 1954 to 1974, forged unbreakable ties between US intelligence and the Zionist entity.
He managed the Israel desk from 1951, liaising directly with Mossad and Shin Bet, viewing Soviet émigrés to the colony as prime intelligence assets. His actions entrenched Zionist interests within American spy networks.
Meir Amit, Mossad Director (1963-1968), who was instrumental in cementing the Mossad-CIA relationship, described Angleton as “the biggest Zionist of the lot”. He viewed Angleton as a personal friend and a foundational figure in the penetration of the US intelligence system.
Angleton’s fanaticism extended to shielding the regime’s top secrets. Former Shin Bet chief Amos Manor,who hosted Angleton on his first visit to the colony in 1952, described how he was able to persuade Angleton that the Zionists were not potential Communist agents and after that, he was firmly in their camp.
Monuments to betrayal: Honoring a US traitor in the colony
The Zionist colony uniquely memorialized Angleton with two tributes, underscoring his pivotal role in its ascent. In 1987, Mossad and Shin Bet leaders secretly planted a tree and dedicated a stone near Jerusalem, inscribed “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.” A second site, “Jim Angleton Corner” in Yemin Moshe, overlooks the Old City.
These honors, as The Washington Postreported in 1987, reflect gratitude for his espionage aid. No other US intelligence officer received such recognition. This singularity highlights Angleton’s exceptional service to the settler state.
Jefferson Morley wrote in his biography of Angleton, entitled Ghost: “Angleton was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day.”
Samuel Katz, author of Soldier Spies: Israeli Military Intelligence, claims in his 1992 book that “perhaps most importantly, [MOSSAD] forged a firm and binding relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, especially with the legendary James Jesus Angleton”.
His monuments symbolize the deep penetration of Zionist agendas into US halls of power.
Enabling the bomb: US officials’ collusions
Angleton facilitated the Zionist regime’s nuclear arsenal through betrayals of American secrets. Both Morley and Katz, along with Seymour Hersh (in The Samson Option) and others, claimed he directed CIA assistance to the Zionist nuclear programme, diverting scrutiny from Dimona’s development in the 1960s.
The NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation) affair—also known as the Apollo affair—involved the unexplained disappearance of over 300 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU, weapons-grade material sufficient for several nuclear bombs) from a US nuclear fuel-processing plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania, between the late 1950s and the 1970s.
Declassified FBI, CIA, and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) records show strong suspicions that some or much of it was diverted to Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program at Dimona.
The company’s ownership and management were closely linked to Zionist networks: founder and president Dr. Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, a prominent chemist, headed the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintained extensive contacts with Israeli regime officials, including science attachés at the embassy, Shin Bet and Mossad operatives, and LAKAM (Israel’s scientific intelligence unit focused on nuclear technology acquisition).
NUMEC’s key financial backer, David Lowenthal, an American Zionist, co-founded the company through Apollo Industries and partnered with figures like Ivan J. Novick (later ZOA national president); NUMEC acted as a U.S. procurement and technical agent for Israel’s defense ministry.
FBI surveillance and wiretaps documented Shapiro’s “pronounced pro-Israeli sympathies,” including a November 8, 1968, intercepted statement that “he is of more value to Israel if he continues to reside in the US, where Israel’s problems can be more readily resolved.”
A 1980 FBI affidavit from a former NUMEC employee described witnessing armed strangers loading HEU canisters onto a truck bound for Israel via Zim shipping lines in early 1965, followed by threats to remain silent.
Shapiro consistently denied any diversion, attributing losses to routine “attrition,” contamination, and plant residues. US intelligence assessments disagreed: CIA Deputy Director Carl Duckett briefed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in February 1976 that the missing uranium “ended up in Israeli bombs,” a view echoed in CIA internal memos and briefings.
Environmental samples near Dimona reportedly matched US Portsmouth-enriched HEU supplied to NUMEC. Despite extensive investigations spanning multiple agencies and administrations, there were no prosecutions.
The affair remains unresolved, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded cleanups costing hundreds of millions in recent decades. Roger Mattson’s book, Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel, details how denial and deception armed “Israel,” with officials like Angleton turning a blind eye to Zionist covert ops.
Jonathan Pollard compounded these treacheries. The naval intelligence analyst, arrested in 1985, passed classified data to handlers, compromising US signals intelligence. Collaborators included Rafi Eitan, Pollard’s handler, and Aviem Sella, who recruited him and was indicted for espionage, but later pardoned by Trump.
The Forward noted how such acts strained alliances, yet US leniency persisted, an indication of an advanced process of state capture.
Senator Fulbright – The canary in the coal mine
Senator William Fulbright (US Senator, 1945-1974; longtime chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was one of the first major political figures to call out Zionist infiltration of the US political system.
He said, on the CBS show, Face the Nation, in early 1973, that “The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion, much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel. This is a most unusual development.”
He went on to say, “The great majority of the Senate of the United States–somewhere around 80 percent–are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and again and this has made it difficult for our government.”
He expanded on his views in a major speech in 1974 in which he talked of Zionist “domination” of the power structure:
“So completely have the majority of our officeholders fallen under Israeli domination that they not only deny the legitimacy of Palestinian national feeling, but such otherwise fair-minded individuals as the two current candidates for Senator from New York engage in heated debate as to which one more passionately opposes a Palestinian state. We have nearly allowed our détente with the Soviet Union to go on the rocks to obtain an agreement on large-scale Jewish emigration — a matter of limited relevance to the basic issue of human rights in the Soviet Union, and of no relevance to the vital interests of the United States.”
Since then, many major figures from both parties (Fulbright was a Democrat) have endorsed or extended this analysis, including
1990 – Pat Buchanan (White House Communications Director under President Reagan; Republican presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000) “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory.” (15 June 1990, on the television show The McLaughlin Group)
2006 – Chuck Hagel (US Senator, R-NE, 1997-2009; later Secretary of Defense under President Obama): “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.” (2006 interview, Aaron David Miller).
2007 – Ron Paul (US Representative, R-TX, multiple terms through 2012; Republican presidential candidate): “AIPAC is very influential in our political process … the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war.” (May 22, 2007)
2007 – Jim Moran (US Representative, D-VA, 1991-2015) “AIPAC had been pushing the [Iraq War] from the beginning … I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.” (interview with Tikkun magazine, September 2007).
2019 – Ilhan Omar (US Representative, D-MN, 2019–present) “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” (referring to campaign money; she clarified the next day that she meant AIPAC). She also stated there is “political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”(February 2019).
2024 – Thomas Massie (US Representative, R-KY, 2012–present): “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person. It’s like your babysitter. Your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you about AIPAC. … They’ve got your cell number and you have conversations with them.” Date: June 7, 2024 (interview on The Tucker Carlson Show).
Angleton’s influence lingered, shaping US policy toward West Asia in multiple ways, and becoming more institutionalised despite Mossad intelligence ops breaching a mutual no-spying agreement on many occasions.
Collaboration grew with the Kilowatt network in which 18 Western agencies (including CIA, MI6, Mossad) shared raw intel on Palestinian resistance operatives, enabling Mossad’s so-called “Wrath of God” assassinations.
Collaboration stepped up in the 1980s under Reagan when a memorandum of understanding on counterterrorism included proposed joint programs and assassination authorizations.
Unequal alliance: Intel sharing and persistent spying
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou highlighted the lopsided US-Zionist intelligence pact. The regime receives near-total access yet spies relentlessly.
“Mossad gets the best intel cooperation from the US, including 99% of secrets, but they still spy on the US for the remaining 1%,” Kiriakou asserted in his podcasts.
Evidence abounds: In the 1990s, Israelis wiretapped White House lines during Clinton’s era, according to reports in the Guardian. Under Trump, StingRay devices near the White House mimicked cell towers, linked to Mossad by FBI forensics, as Politico reported.
These operations targeted presidents and aides, not the action of an ally, but of a hostile power.
Mossad’s Pentagon infiltration post-9/11
After 9/11, Mossad agents roamed the Pentagon unchecked, as retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson revealed. They bypassed security, accessing high-level officials like Douglas Feith.
“I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 2002. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance… They went upstairs to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy… Occasionally, they went to… Paul Wolfowitz… Donald Rumsfeld said to my boss one time ‘Hell, I don’t run my building, Mossad does!” Wilkerson stated in interviews.
This access, circulated widely online, exposed Zionist overreach amid heightened US vulnerabilities.
Neocons’ Iraq war: A campaign for the Zionist entity
As leading commentators affirm, neoconservatives engineered the 2003 Iraq invasion primarily for the settler colony’s benefit.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued in their seminal essay that the lobby pushed regime change to reorder West Asia, surrounding the Israeli-occupied territories with compliant states. “Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical.”
They also noted: “Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign.”
They added that the war was “motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure,” citing Philip Zelikow’s 2002 statement that the “unstated threat” from Iraq was primarily against Israel.
“Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.”
They further note that the lobby was a “necessary but not sufficient” condition, citing a February 2003 Ha’aretz report: “the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.”
They specifically highlighted the following statements from Zionist leaders:
Shimon Peres (September 2002): “The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.”
Ehud Barak (New York Times op-ed, September 2002): “The greatest risk now lies in inaction.”
Benjamin Netanyahu (Wall Street Journal op-ed, September 2002): “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do… I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.”
The duo notes that Israeli intelligence acted as a “full partner,” providing alarming (often exaggerated) WMD reports and urging no delay.
Zionist leaders lobbied against UN inspections and delays but were cautious about public over-visibility to avoid perceptions of pushing the US into war.
Some (e.g., Ariel Sharon) initially saw Iran as the bigger threat and had reservations, shifting support only after American plans solidified.
Breaking the chains: Against Pax Judaica
These infiltrations reveal a parasitic dynamic, where Zionist agendas hijack and direct American might. Dismantling such entanglements demands vigilance and determined action over the course of years. However, it cannot be done in isolation.
Defeating the Zionist colony is only the beginning. After that comes the need to push back against the Zionist capture of Western states and the rest of West Asia as well.
The most effective and decisive strike against the Zionist colony and its US proxy is currently being struck by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.
According to available and credible evidence, Iranian armed forces have decimated Israeli military infrastructure across the occupied territories as well as American military bases scattered across the Persian Gulf region in the past three weeks.
The next few weeks would be decisive for the US presence in the region and the future of the Zionist entity that is reeling under unprecedented retaliatory strikes.
For more than two decades, Meyer Lansky built what he believed would be his permanent kingdom in the Caribbean. The Jewish gangster from New York’s Lower East Side had transformed Havana into the gambling capital of the Western Hemisphere, a glittering playground where American tourists could indulge every vice under the protection of a dictator on the mob’s payroll. Then came Fidel Castro, a young Catholic revolutionary from the Cuban countryside who would destroy everything Lansky had built in a matter of weeks.
Their conflict was never personal. The two men likely never met or spoke. But the collision between Lansky’s criminal empire and Castro’s revolutionary movement would reshape Cuba, spawn assassination plots that entangled the CIA, and leave a trail of consequences that echoes into the present day.
More than half a century later, as Washington once again toys with the idea of remaking Cuba’s political order, the ghost of Meyer Lansky’s Havana hangs over every discussion of regime change: the dream of turning the island back into a glittering casino colony has never fully died.
Meyer Lansky entered the world as Maier Suchowljansky on July 4, 1902, in Grodno, a city in the Russian Empire that now belongs to Belarus. His family was part of the vast population of Eastern European Jews who migrated to America in the early 20th century. In 1911, Lansky emigrated with his mother and brother Jacob through the port of Odessa, joining his father Max, who had arrived two years earlier and settled first in Brownsville, Brooklyn. The family later moved to the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where Max worked in the garment industry and young Meyer grew up among the crowded tenements where Yiddish filled the streets and opportunity meant whatever you could grab with your own hands.
Young Meyer found his opportunities in crime. By 1918 he and his friend Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel were running floating dice games on the streets. They graduated to auto theft, then burglary, and when Prohibition arrived, they plunged into the liquor smuggling trade that would make fortunes for a generation of gangsters. Lansky also befriended Charles “Lucky” Luciano, an Italian immigrant who would become one of the most powerful mob bosses in American history.
The three young men rose together. Lansky and Siegel developed a squad of killers for hire that became the prototype for Murder, Inc. Lansky allegedly persuaded Luciano to arrange the 1931 assassination of mob boss Joe “The Boss” Masseria, a murder that consolidated power and helped establish the National Crime Syndicate between 1932 and 1934.
What set Lansky apart from the gunmen and enforcers around him was his financial chops. He became known as the “Mob’s Accountant,” the man who used Swiss bank accounts and shell companies to launder the Mafia’s wealth and hide it from federal investigators. He oversaw the syndicate’s finances as its unofficial banker and was instrumental in shifting the mob’s focus from bootlegging to gambling after Prohibition ended in 1933. His gambling operations stretched from Florida to New Orleans to Las Vegas.
But Lansky’s grandest ambition lay 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
Building the Havana Empire
Lansky’s relationship with Cuba began in 1933, the same year Prohibition ended, and a young military strongman named Fulgencio Batista seized control of the island nation. Lansky pitched Batista a proposal to open Mafia-owned casinos and nightclubs in Havana. The arrangement was straightforward. Batista and his inner circle would receive regular payments from the mob, and in return the gangsters could operate without interference from Cuban authorities.
By 1938, Lansky had been formally invited to help clean up and professionalize Havana’s gambling operations, which had been plagued by fixed races and crooked dealers. He was the fixer, the man who could make the casinos run honestly enough to keep the tourists coming back.
The landmark event came in December 1946 with what became known as the Havana Conference. More than 20 mob bosses from across the United States gathered at the Hotel Nacional de Cuba for a meeting organized by Lansky on Luciano’s orders. The expansion of mob operations in Cuba sat at the top of the agenda. Lansky then visited Batista, who was temporarily out of power and living in Florida, and urged him to return to Cuba to fulfill their grand plans.
Batista obliged. He returned to power through a military coup in 1952, and the arrangement with the mob became even more lucrative. The Batista-Lansky Alliance, included a deal where Batista agreed to match dollar for dollar any hotel investment over one million dollars, with each project automatically including a casino license. Casino hotels were exempted from Cuban taxes.
Lansky owned or held financial interests in at least three major gambling operations. The crown jewel was the Habana Riviera, which opened in December 1957 as the largest Mafia-owned hotel casino outside Las Vegas. It featured 440 rooms that were booked solid for its first winter season. Cuban development banks subsidized half of the $14 million construction cost.
But Lansky did not build this empire alone.
The Inner Circle
Jake Lansky, Meyer’s brother, served as his most trusted man on the ground in Cuba. Jake managed the casino at the Hotel Nacional, Cuba’s most prestigious hotel. By spring 1957, it was reportedly bringing in as much cash as the biggest casinos in Las Vegas.
Joseph “Doc” Stacher was a lifelong Lansky associate dating back to their youth in Newark, New Jersey. Born Gdale Oistaczer in Letychiv, in what is now Ukraine, Stacher was also Jewish and had risen through the criminal ranks alongside Lansky. He operated as the official bribe paymaster to Batista, managing the corrupt payments that kept the dictator and his inner circle cooperative.
Norman “Roughhouse” Rothman was another mobster deeply embedded in the Havana gambling scene. He was a close associate of Santo Trafficante Jr. and operated casinos in Havana, most notably the Sans Souci. Cuba’s slot machine concessions were controlled by Roberto Fernandez y Miranda, Batista’s brother-in-law and army general, who held them as a personal fief.
Ed Levinson, a longtime Lansky associate, ran illegal gambling operations from the Midwest to Kentucky. In Cuba, Levinson’s name appeared on the casino license for the Habana Riviera itself. Lansky kept his own name listed only as the hotel’s kitchen director while Levinson served as the official licensee.
Dino Cellini, though Italian-American rather than Jewish, worked hand in glove with the Lansky operation. He served as casino manager at the Habana Riviera before being replaced by Frank Erickson, and was later detained alongside Jake Lansky at the Tiscornia immigration camp after Castro took power.
The operation also included powerful Italian-American mobsters. Santo Trafficante Jr., the Tampa crime family boss, openly operated the Sans Souci nightclub and the Casino Internacional at the Hotel Nacional. He was also suspected of having behind-the-scenes interests in the Habana Riviera, the Tropicana Club, the Sevilla-Biltmore, the Capri Hotel Casino, the Commodoro, the Deauville, and the Havana Hilton.
The Revolutionary in the Mountains
While Lansky counted his profits in Havana’s glittering casinos, a revolutionary movement was gathering strength in the mountains of eastern Cuba.
Fidel Castro came from a background that could not have been more different from Lansky’s. Born on August 13, 1926, near Birán in Oriente Province, Castro was the son of a prosperous Spanish immigrant landowner. He was raised Catholic and educated at Jesuit schools in Santiago de Cuba and Havana, including the prestigious Colegio de Belén. He studied law at the University of Havana beginning in 1945, earned his degree in 1950, and briefly practiced as a lawyer before turning fully to revolutionary politics. Where Lansky had clawed his way up from immigrant poverty through criminal enterprise, Castro came from rural privilege and channeled his ambitions into armed struggle against the Batista regime.
Castro’s 26th of July Movement directly targeted the Mafia’s presence in its propaganda. In 1958, the revolutionaries denounced the mobsters in radio broadcasts from their guerrilla redoubt in the Sierra Maestra, accusing them of turning Havana into a center of commercialized vice through gambling, prostitution, and drugs. The casinos, the brothels, the drugs, the corruption that enriched Batista and his American gangster partners would all be swept away when the revolution triumphed.
The Fall
On December 31, 1958, Batista’s army was defeated at the Battle of Santa Clara. That night, Batista fled the country for the Dominican Republic, abandoning his gangster partners along with everything else. Lansky left Cuba on January 7, 1959, the day before Castro marched into Havana.
What happened next was a settling of accounts that played out in the streets of Havana. On January 1, 1959, citizens took to the streets after hearing news of Batista’s flight, ransacking casinos, smashing slot machines, and dragging gambling equipment into the streets to be burned. To many Cubans, the American-owned hotels symbolized a corrupting foreign influence. At the Riviera, Lansky’s crown jewel, campesinos (peasants) reportedly brought a truckload of pigs into the lobby. Castro vowed to “clean out all the gamblers.” The revolutionary government eventually nationalized the Riviera and all other Mafia-owned properties, though the final nationalization of hotel casinos did not come until October 1960. Some casinos briefly re-opened on February 19, 1959, after casino workers who depended on tourism jobs marched to the presidential palace demanding their livelihoods back, but tourists stopped coming. Lansky, who told many associates that Cuba had ruined him financially, looked to other outposts in the Caribbean and South America.
Not everyone fled immediately. Jake Lansky and Dino Cellini were arrested by Cuban authorities in May 1959 and detained at the Tiscornia immigration camp outside Havana, the same facility where Santo Trafficante Jr. was also being held. According to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics Harry J. Anslinger had sent a list of suspected drug traffickers to Cuban authorities that included both Jake Lansky and Cellini. Jake Lansky and Cellini were detained for approximately 25 days before being released; Trafficante was held until August. All eventually left Cuba.
By October 1960, Castro formally nationalized all hotel casinos on the island and outlawed gambling entirely.
Revenge and Assassination Plots
Lansky did not merely accept his losses. He actively sought to use the U.S. government and its intelligence apparatus to reclaim his Cuban empire.
According to Doc Stacher, Lansky “indicated to the CIA that some of his people who were still on the island might assassinate Castro” and was “quite prepared to finance the operation himself.”
This was not Lansky’s first collaborative effort with American intelligence. During World War II, he had served as a key intermediary in Operation Underworld, a classified program in which the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence enlisted the Mafia to counter Axis sabotage on the northeastern seaboard. That wartime relationship established a precedent for cooperation between organized crime and the U.S. government.
In August 1960, according to a report by Salon, Lansky struck a deal with exiled Cuban politician Manuel Antonio Varona, offering him several million dollars to form a Cuban government-in-exile to replace Castro. Lansky also promised to arrange a public relations campaign to polish Varona’s image, with the single-minded objective of reopening the Mafia’s casinos, hotels, and nightclubs in a post-Castro Cuba.
Around the same time, the CIA formally recruited mobsters with deep ties to the Havana gambling operations into plots to eliminate Castro. In September 1960, the agency enlisted Chicago Mob operative Johnny Rosselli through former FBI agent Robert Maheu. Rosselli brought in Chicago boss Sam Giancana and Tampa boss Santo Trafficante Jr. The CIA created poison pills to be slipped into Castro’s food, but the attempts failed. The CIA-Mafia assassination partnership was scuttled in early 1963, though the CIA continued plotting against Castro through other means.
Norman Rothman’s trajectory after the revolution was particularly dramatic. Before the revolution succeeded, Rothman had actually been running guns to Castro’s rebels alongside Joe Merola and the Mannarino brothers of Pittsburgh. Sam Mannarino had reasoned that if Castro won, the mobsters who helped arm him would be in the driver’s seat for Cuba’s gambling industry. Rothman advised Mannarino to place his bets on Castro, predicting he would allow the casinos to remain under Mafia control. When that calculation proved disastrously wrong, the scheme unraveled. The weapons in question, 317 guns, had been stolen from a National Guard armory in Canton, Ohio. A plane carrying 121 of the stolen weapons was captured at Morgantown, West Virginia on November 4, 1958. Rothman was convicted on February 4, 1960, along with five co-defendants, for possession, receiving, transportation, and exportation of firearms stolen from the United States government.
Lansky also explored contingency plans in case Cuba could not be recovered. He traveled to the Dominican Republic in 1958 to meet with dictator Rafael Trujillo about potentially relocating the entire Havana operation there. None of these schemes succeeded.
The Final Years
Lansky spent his final years living quietly in Miami Beach. In 1970, facing federal tax evasion charges, he fled to Israel, hoping to claim citizenship under the Law of Return. But after two years, Israel rejected his bid for permanent residency due to his criminal record and deported him back to the United States, where he was arrested at Miami International Airport.
He was acquitted of the tax evasion charges, in part because the government’s main witness lacked credibility, and other indictments were abandoned due to his chronic ill health. He died on January 15, 1983, at age 80 from lung cancer. Despite nearly half a century of involvement in organized crime, the most serious conviction he ever received was for illegal gambling in 1953, which resulted in only a brief jail term.
Despite a lifetime running one of the world’s most profitable criminal enterprises, a granddaughter later claimed he left behind just $57,000 in cash. The FBI believed he had hidden at least $300 million in offshore bank accounts, but this money was never recovered. His heirs later filed a compensation claim against Cuba for the Riviera with the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, valuing the property at $70 million.
The mob never returned to Cuba. The casinos that Lansky built were nationalized, and gambling was outlawed entirely. The slot machines that crowds smashed in the streets on New Year’s Day 1959 were never replaced. The Habana Riviera still stands on the Malecón waterfront, declared a National Monument in 2012 and now managed by the Spanish chain Iberostar, still maintaining its original 1950s style. Staff members still refer to it as “el hotel de Meyer Lansky.”
Fidel Castro outlived Meyer Lansky by more than three decades, dying in 2016 at age 90. The revolutionary who had vowed to clean out all the gamblers kept that promise, at least regarding the foreign mobsters who had turned Havana into their personal playground.
The confrontation between these two men, the Jewish gangster from the Lower East Side and the Catholic revolutionary from Oriente Province, ended decisively in Castro’s favor.
Castro’s revolution did what no rival gangster or corrupt strongman ever managed: it toppled the dictatorship that shielded Lansky’s operations and erased his Havana casino empire almost overnight. In the name of sovereignty, the new regime shut down the glittering hotels and gambling halls that had turned Cuba into a playground for American tourists, mafiosi, and intelligence services alike.
But the pressures now bearing down on Cuba suggest that history’s wheel is turning back toward Lansky’s original blueprint. A successful regime change engineered from abroad would not simply “liberate” the island; it would open prime waterfront real estate and tourist infrastructure to the same forces of vice, speculation, and foreign ownership that once made Havana the mob’s favorite casino.
The danger is that Cuba’s next great transformation would replace revolutionary austerity not with genuine self‑determination, but with a return to what Lansky always wanted. Namely, a Caribbean Macau where the house is global finance, the chips are Cuban sovereignty, and the people of the island are once again reduced to serving drinks on someone else’s casino floor.
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.