A short guide on how to starve a population to death
By Jonathan Cook | May 28, 2025
A short guide on how to engineer a genocide by starvation and ethnic cleansing:
1. Choose your moment. Ok, you’ve been ethnically cleansing, occupying, oppressing and killing your neighbours for decades. The international courts have ruled your actions illegal. But none of that will matter the moment your neighbours retaliate by attacking you. Don’t worry. The western media can be relied on to help out here. They will be only too ready to pretend that history began on the day you were attacked.
2. Declare, in response, your intention to starve your neighbours, treating them as “human animals”, by blocking all food, water and power. You will be surprised by how many western politicians are ready to support this as your “right to defend yourself”. The media will echo them. Important not to just talk about blocking aid. You must actually do it. There will be no serious pushback for many, many months.
3. Start relatively slowly. Time is on your side. Let a little bit of aid in. But make sure to relentlessly smear the well functioning, decades-old aid distribution system run by the international community – one that is transparent, accountable and widely integrated into the community it serves. Say it is infiltrated by “terrorists”.
4. Use that claim – evidence isn’t really necessary, the western media never ask for it – as the pretext to bomb the aid system’s warehouses, distribution centres and community kitchens. Oh, and don’t forget to bomb all the private bakeries, destroy all the farmland, shoot all the animals and kill anyone who tries to use a fishing boat, so that there are no other sources of food. You are now in control of the trickle of aid reaching what is rapidly becoming a severely malnourished population.
5. Time to move into higher gear. Stop the international community’s aid getting in all together. You will need a humanitarian cover story for this bit. The danger, particularly in an age of social media, is that images of starving babies will make you look very bad. Hold firm. You can get through this. Claim – again evidence isn’t really necessary, the western media won’t ask for it – that the “terrorists” are stealing the aid. You will be surprised how willing the media is to talk about babies going “hungry”, ignoring the fact that you are starving them to death, or speak of a “famine”, as though from drought and crop failure, not from your carefully laid plans.
6. Don’t lose sight of the bigger story. You are blocking aid to “eradicate the terrorists”. After all, what is the worth of a baby, of a child – all 1 million of them – in the fight to eliminate a rag-tag army of lightly armed “terrorists” who have never waged their struggle outside of their historic homeland.
7. Now that the population are entirely at your disposal, you can roll out a “humanitarian” alternative to the existing system you have been vilifying and wrecking. Probably best to have been working on this part of the plan behind the scenes from early on, and to have regularly consulted with the Americans on how to develop it. You may even find they are willing to fund it. They usually are. You can obscure their role by using the term “private contractors”.
8. It’s time for implementation. Obviously, the point is not to really distribute aid. It is all about providing a cover story so that the starvation and ethnic cleansing can continue. Make sure you provide only a tiny amount of aid and make it available only at a few distribution points you have set up with these “private contractors”. This has two advantages.
9. It forces the population to come to the areas you want them in. Like luring mice into a trap. Get them to the very edge of the territory, because from there you will be best positioned at some point to drive them over the border and get rid of them for good.
10. Your system will lead to chaos, as desperate, starving people fight for food. That’s great for you. It makes them look like a swarming mass of those “human animals” you were talking about from the start. Don’t they deserve their fate? And it means that young, fit men – especially those from large, often armed, criminal families – will end up with most of the food. The stuff they can’t grab at the distribution points, they will ambush later as people try to return home laden with their heavy aid packages. That may seem counter-productive, given that you’re claiming to want to eliminate the “terrorists”. Won’t these fit, young men, as conditions degenerate further, provide a future source of recruits to the “terrorists”. But remember, the real goal here is to starve the population as quickly as possible. The young, the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable are the ones who will die first. The more of them who start dying, the faster the pressure builds on everyone else to flee the territory to save themselves.
You are nearly there. True, faced with the emaciated bodies of your victims, western politicians will start making harsh pronouncements. But they have already given you a massive head start of 20 months. Be grateful for that. You don’t need much longer. While they dither, you can get on with the job of extermination. Leave it to the history books to judge what really happened.
ADL Regional Director Calls for Government-Regulated Online Censorship
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 27, 2025
The Anti-Defamation League’s David Goldenberg is demanding a broad overhaul of how speech is governed on the internet, calling for both government intervention and intensified corporate censorship. In a recent appearance, Goldenberg, who heads the ADL’s Midwest operations, expressed frustration over what he sees as declining efforts by tech firms to suppress online content he deems hateful.
Citing Meta’s rollback of its fact-checking team in the United States, he argued that platforms must be forced to take action. “You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department… And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech that is insightful.(sic)”
Goldenberg advocated not just for voluntary moderation, but for legislative and regulatory measures, both at the federal and state level, that would compel platforms to act as speech enforcers. He pointed to efforts in states like California as examples of where local governments are already testing such models.
His concern centers around what he perceives as an ecosystem of radicalization made easily accessible by today’s digital infrastructure. He warned that extremist ideologies no longer require obscure forums or dark web communities to spread. “It used to be you had to fight going into the deep dark web… Now… it’s easier and easier to be exposed in the mainstream,” he said.
Framing the online environment as a catalyst for violence, Goldenberg argued that free access to controversial viewpoints must be curtailed. He called for social media companies to take a stronger stance by excluding users whose views fall outside accepted boundaries, adding that regulation should enforce this responsibility.
He zeroed in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a critical piece of legislation that shields platforms from legal liability over user-posted content. “Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now for what happens,” Goldenberg said. He dismissed comparisons between modern platforms and telecommunications companies, referencing past remarks by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about how phone providers were not liable for threats made over calls. Goldenberg’s view was blunt: “These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They’re just not.”
From his perspective, private companies should be free to “kick people off, to de-platform,” and if they fail to do so voluntarily, they must be pressured or regulated into compliance. He described accountability as a mechanism for shaping behavior, stating, “Accountability is a tool that can be incredibly effective in changing behavior.”
The position advanced by Goldenberg reflects a broader effort to blur the line between public authority and private platform control. By demanding that companies mirror the goals of activists and lawmakers, his approach seeks to institutionalize censorship and convert digital platforms into engines of ideological enforcement.
But such a vision comes with consequences. By urging the dismantling of legal protections and empowering both governments and corporations to decide which views should be silenced, this framework sets the stage for widespread suppression. What’s framed as protection from harm becomes a template for restricting dissent, and narrowing the range of permissible thought in public discourse.
Israel’s claim that ‘Hamas is stealing aid’ is patently a lie. Here’s why
By Jonathan Cook | May 27, 2025
Israel’s claim that Hamas is “stealing aid” is so preposterous no serious journalist or politician ought to give it any kind of airing – yet there it is continuously cropping up in the coverage of Gaza.
How do I know Israel’s claim is utterly worthless? For this simple reason:
Israel has a fleet of surveillance drones constantly hovering over the tiny strip of land that is Gaza, monitoring every inch of the territory. The incessant whine you hear every time you watch someone there being interviewed is from one of those drones. They are Israel’s eyes on the enclave. If you are outside in Gaza, you might as well be living in the Truman Show.
Were Hamas stealing aid in Gaza, Israel would easily be able to document it. It would have the video footage from its drones. The fact that it has not provided any footage showing Hamas’ theft of aid – its ransacking of aid trucks, or its fighters smuggling themselves into aid warehouses – is confirmation enough that Israel has simply invented this claim to rationalise its plans to starve the people of Gaza to death through months of an aid blockade or force them to flee into neighbouring Sinai, whichever comes first.
Without its disinformation campaign about “Hamas stealing aid”, Israel knows popular revulsion at its starvation campaign would grow quickly, and western governments would further struggle to keep opposition in check.
There are lots of others reasons, of course, to reject Israel’s lies about “Hamas stealing aid”. Not least, because every single charity and aid agency dealing with Gaza says that aid is not being stolen by Hamas.
But also because, were Hamas fighters doing so, they would be stealing from their own families: from their children and grandparents, who are much more vulnerable to Israel’s starvation campaign than they are. The idea that Hamas is stealing aid makes sense only to a racist, European colonial mindset in which Hamas fighters are viewed as bogeymen figures indifferent to the deaths of their own children, wives and parents.
What undoubtedly is happening is that Israel is allowing the strongest extended families in Gaza – often crime families with significant private arsenals – to loot the aid. That has become a serious problem since Israel killed off Gaza’s civilian police force (in violation of international law), leaving no one to enforce public order.
When everyone’s starving, the most powerful families mobilise their strength to grab an unfair share of the aid. That was an entirely predictable outcome of Israel’s policy to smash all of Gaza’s institutions, including its hospitals, government offices, and police stations, on the bogus pretext that they were “Hamas”.
Note too that Israel has long cultivated close ties to Palestinian crime families, because they provide a potential alternative, and more co-optable, power base to the Palestinian national movements and are a good source of collaborators.
The evidence suggests Israel is encouraging these crime families to loot the aid precisely to justify its dismantling of an existing aid system that works remarkably well, given the catastrophic circumstances in Gaza, and replace it with its own militarised, completely inadequate “aid distribution” system, which is designed only to herd Palestinians into the southern-most tip of Gaza, ready to be expelled into Sinai.
No journalist ought to be repeating Israel’s transparent disinformation. To do so is to collude in the promotion of lies to justify genocide. But the western media class have been doing that now for more than a year and half. They have grown entirely insensible to their own active collusion in the genocide.
“Senators from Israel” Sabotaging Trump’s Iran Deal
By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | May 27, 2025
Last month I warned in these pages that Donald Trump faces a stark choice regarding Iran: “Nuclear Deal II or World War III.” I pointed out that Iran is open to a deal, but that it won’t be much different from the JCPOA that Trump unilaterally canceled during his first term.
Failure to reach a nuclear agreement would make a catastrophic US war on Iran almost inevitable—not because Iran would quickly build nuclear weapons or threaten anyone, but because failed negotiations would embolden Israel to attack Iran, knowing that it would almost certainly be able to draw the US into the war. And if that happened, Iran could climb the escalation ladder by killing thousands of US soldiers, sinking US ships, and most importantly, destroying enough of the region’s oil production to completely collapse the global economy.
Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons, which are banned by a decades-old religious edict renewed by the current Supreme Leader. But a growing minority of Iranians want to rethink that edict. They believe that Iran’s lack of nuclear weapons has allowed nuclear-armed Israel to repeatedly attack it, murder its scientists, perhaps even (deniably) assassinate its president, and commit genocide and other crimes with impunity. So even though nukes are ungodly, the minority claims, there is a “necessity doctrine” that allows people to do things that are ordinarily forbidden if survival requires it.
Israel, for its part, wants to completely dominate the region. Zionist extremists, who now represent about half the Israeli public, are committed to building “Greater Israel.” That would require genocide at industrial scale to eliminate regional populations so Yahweh’s supposedly chosen people can steal all the land and resources between the Nile and Euphrates rivers.
An ever-expanding Israel that continues invading and occupying its neighbors, stealing their land and resources, and murdering and expelling their populations cannot dream of doing such things unless it is the only nuclear weapons state in the region. So the possibility that one day Iran might “go nuclear” worries Israeli hardliners. If Iran continues developing its civilian nuclear program, Israelis believe, someday its leaders might change their minds and decide to build nuclear weapons. The Israelis apparently don’t understand that it is their own reckless criminality that is driving more and more Iranians toward considering the necessity of developing nukes for self-defense.
A Trump nuclear agreement would, like its predecessor, keep Iran in a position of needing about a year of “breakout time” to build nuclear weapons—as opposed to months or even weeks without a deal. But that’s not good enough for Netanyahu and other Israeli hardliners. They want to lay waste to Iran, even if it requires blowing up the global economy and with it Trump’s presidency.
A group of “Senators from Israel” led by Tom Cotton (R-IS) and Lindsey Graham (R-IS) is trying to torpedo Trump’s nuclear negotiations with Iran. The treasonous Israeli-owned senators are pushing a resolution demanding that Iran completely dismantle its civilian nuclear program. That’s a non-starter. International law, beginning with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) specifically allows Iran (like other non-nuclear-weapons states including Japan, Brazil, and the Netherlands) to enrich up to 5%. Under the 2015 JCPOA Iran agreed to limit enrichment to 3.67%, a significant concession representing roughly the minimum enrichment required for nuclear power and research.
The “Senators from Israel” also want Iran to abandon its ballistic missiles—the core of its defense strategy—and stop cooperating with regional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and above all, Palestine. Those demands, too, are non-starters. Their only purpose is to destroy the possibility of any agreement, thereby opening the door for Israel to drag the US into a disastrous war on Iran.
Will the Trump Administration break free from the malign influence of the Israel lobby and its extremist leader, Benzion Mileikowsky, that Polish-born internationally-wanted criminal who operates under the alias “Benjamin Netanyahu”? Will Trump take the advice I offered last month and “terminate Bibi’s command…with extreme prejudice if necessary?”
There are encouraging signs that Trump may jettison Netanyahu in order to avoid the war-on-Iran-for-Israel trap that Bibi has set for him. By striking a separate peace with Yemen’s Houthis that allows them to continue targeting Israel, then triumphally visiting the region’s Arab capitals (including Hamas-funding Qatar) Trump has done everything but order Israel to stop its genocide in Gaza.
Trump needs to give that order ASAP—not only for humanitarian reasons, but also to create a fait accompli that will help bring down Netanyahu and forestall the Israeli hardliners’ efforts to trick the US into yet another disastrous war for Israel. If the Trump Administration does not act decisively, Netanyahu’s bought-and-paid-for “US” senators will keep pushing Bibi’s war plans, with potentially catastrophic results.
The Right Approach to the US-Iran Nuclear Negotiations
By Glenn Diesen | May 27, 2025
I recently attended a media festival in Tehran and also had the opportunity to explore Iran’s weapon systems and one of its nuclear facilities. Iran’s nuclear program is cited as the main reason for Israel and the US to threaten war with Iran. Such a war would likely escalate into a disastrous regional conflict, and perhaps even pull in the other great powers in a world war. Israel obviously needs to bring America on board to attack Iran, so the discussions between the US and Iran are of great importance. What do the Americans and Iranians want, and is there common ground that can be reached?
If the only demand by the US was for Iran to abstain from developing nuclear weapons, then an agreement could be reached, as Iran claims it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and has accepted that inspectors are there to ensure compliance. Indeed, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and honoured its obligations before the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. The US now demands a renegotiation and demands the complete dismantlement of Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, which it is entitled to have as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Furthermore, the US has linked its hegemonic policies in the region to the nuclear issue. The US demands that Iran limit the range of its ballistic missile program and also suspend its support for allies in the region – primarily Yemen, Lebanon and Hamas. From Tehran’s perspective, this represents a complete capitulation that would make its security dependent on the benign intentions of Israel and the US. This neglects that the US has had Iran in its crosshairs for the past 45 years, and Iran does have legitimate security concerns.
What can be considered a legitimate security concern by the US is that Iran has become a nuclear threshold state, with the knowledge and material to develop a nuclear weapon. Restricting the extent to which uranium is enriched and imposing strict inspections could possibly be negotiated.
However, threatening to bomb Iran would not eliminate its know-how or all of its material, and such an attack would only incentivise Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Even US threats to attack Iran unless it complies with US demands must be making the political leadership in Iran consider acquiring a nuclear weapon. So far, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, because doing so would encourage other states, such as Saudi Arabia, to also pursue nuclear weapons. Recognising the security competition, the result would not be greater security for Iran.
In my opinion, another approach to negotiations would be to do what is rarely done anymore in Western diplomacy: to recognise and mitigate the security concerns of the other side for the purpose of reducing the security competition. Threatening and bullying Iran into making unilateral concessions has become the new normal in the unipolar era. The US offer to remove sanctions on Iran is merely an offer to stop punishing Iran. The point of departure in any diplomatic approach should be to address mutual security concerns and explore where an agreement that enhances security for both sides can be found. Threatening Iran with capitulation and linking nuclear issues to unrelated matters will only ensure the failure to reach an agreement.
Take the Deal, President Trump
By Ron Paul | May 26, 2025
Deal-making is said to be President Trump’s specialty, yet after five rounds of indirect talks with Iran – most recently just days ago – we seem as far away from an agreement as ever. The fifth round ended last Friday with no breakthrough, but at least no breakdown. However, each day that passes without a document signed on the table is another day for the neocons to maneuver the US president toward an attack on Iran.
One way the war party does this is to continuously move the goal posts and change the rules of the game. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, under great pressure from the neocons, has himself signaled at least three position-shifts: from no enrichment at all, to low-level enrichment for civilian uses, back to no enrichment at all.
The neocons know that Iran will not give up its right to the civilian use of nuclear power and that is why they are applying maximum pressure to force Trump to officially adopt that position. They know if that becomes the US “red line” then they will win and they will get their war.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in league with US neocons, has been warning us for 20 years that Iran is “months away” from a nuclear weapon – even though our own Intelligence Community recently re-affirmed that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon at all.
Of course this is the same Netanyahu who promised Congress in 2002 if the US would just invade Iraq, peace and prosperity would break out in the Middle East. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime,” he told Congress in March of that year, “I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”
We know how that worked out.
Poll after poll shows that the American people are tired of intervention and tired of Middle East wars. President Trump himself recognized this in his scathing rebuke of neocons and interventionists during a recent speech in Saudi Arabia.
But rebuke in a speech is not enough. President Trump must actively turn away from the neocons – many of whom are prominent in his own administration.
The recent US debacle in Yemen – where billions were wasted, civilians killed, and US military equipment destroyed – is just a taste of what the US would be in for if the neocons get their way and take us to war with Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister laid down in the simplest terms how the impasse could be solved, posting on X that, “Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal; Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal.
My own preference is non-intervention and I do not believe Iran has the desire or the ability to militarily harm the United States. I share President Trump’s view that it would be far better to re-establish relations with Iran and begin mutually beneficial trade with the country. But if a mutually acceptable nuclear deal is the best way to take the neocon war with Iran off the table, then a deal is worth supporting.
President Trump should make his position clear to his negotiators: no more waffling or contradictions, get this agreement signed and put one in the “win” column.
Pakistan PM hails Iran’s diplomacy for regional peace ahead of visit
Press TV – May 26, 2025
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has hailed Iran’s peace diplomacy as commendable, underscoring his nation’s solidarity and support for the Islamic Republic.
Sharif, who will visit Tehran at the official invitation of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday, made the remarks in an interview with IRNA.
Sharif stated that the primary purpose of his visit to Tehran is to express gratitude to Iran for its support—specifically endorsing Iran’s peace-seeking positions in the region—during Pakistan’s recent tensions with India.
Tensions between India and Pakistan sharply escalated after the deadly Pahalgam attack. India blamed Pakistan for the attack, but Pakistan rejected the accusations.
“I wish to express gratitude to Iranian officials for their support of peace and their mediation proposal—which we accepted but India rejected,” he said, adding “I will also use this visit as an opportunity to discuss bilateral relations and matters of mutual interest.”
Sharif praised Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s diplomatic skill, saying the Iranian top diplomat has demonstrated true statesmanship and wisdom in managing significant challenges during an exceptionally complex geopolitical era.
Sharif also stated that Pakistan firmly supports Iran’s condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which has caused severe humanitarian devastation and regional instability.
“Islamabad and Tehran will continue to support one another on issues concerning the Muslim Ummah and to advance regional cooperation,” Sharif added.
A Holocaust in Gaza: Flames, Ash, and 30 Charred Remains
Al Mayadeen | May 26, 2025
The Israeli occupation has escalated its genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, intensifying its assaults on civilians and designated shelter sites in a relentless overnight campaign of destruction. In the early hours of today, as much of the world lay asleep, a devastating inferno engulfed the al-Daraj neighborhood in the heart of Gaza City.
What remains are the charred ruins of a school-turned-shelter, the scorched frames of homes, and a searing image too haunting to forget: a little girl, no older than six, stumbling barefoot through a corridor of flames, her skin scorched, her eyes wide with terror, searching, still alive, for a way out of the Israeli-made holocaust consuming everything around her.
The fire at her heels was no accident. It was born of “Israel’s” bunker-busting missiles, deliberately launched at what was clearly marked as a civilian refuge: Fahmi al-Jarjaoui School, packed with forcibly displaced families who had fled Israeli bombs, only to be massacred beneath them.
The school, situated in a densely populated neighborhood, was struck by missiles that pierced the upper floors and detonated on the lower levels, where dozens of displaced civilians had taken shelter, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported. Many of the victims were burned beyond recognition, with charred remains bearing witness to the intensity of the strike, our correspondent stressed.
By dawn, at least 51 Palestinians were confirmed killed. 30 of the bodies were charred. Among them were children, women, and the elderly, incinerated in a blaze so intense that, according to local officials, human flesh turned to ash. The school became the epicenter of horror: Dozens of lives erased in a single, calculated act of genocide.
A night of horror
In Jabalia, 19 Palestinians were also killed when another Israeli strike leveled a home, as per our correspondent.
Elsewhere in the besieged Strip, one Palestinian was martyred and others were wounded when Israeli forces struck a tent sheltering displaced families inside a kindergarten in al-Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.
The Israeli occupation also carried out a wave of home demolitions and airstrikes across various neighborhoods and towns, including:
- Beit Lahia
- al-Shujaiya
- al-Tuffah
- al-Qarara
Hamas senior official: The Movement agrees to US proposal for permanent ceasefire in Gaza
Palestinian Information Center – May 26, 2025
GAZA – A senior official in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, stated that the Movement has agreed to a proposal by US President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, which stipulates a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The first phase includes the release of 10 Israeli captives in exchange for a 70-day truce and a partial Israeli withdrawal from the Strip.
The senior official said in a press statement on Monday that the new offer approved by the Movement is a developed version of the path and vision proposed by Witkoff. It includes the release of 10 live Israeli captives held by the Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, in exchange for a 60-day truce, a partial Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and the release of a number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, including several hundred with high or life sentences.
The mechanism for releasing the Israeli captives will occur in two phases: five will be released on the first day of the agreement, and five more on the sixtieth day.
The source said that Hamas and the American envoy are finalizing a ceasefire agreement in Doha that would lead to a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
The senior official clarified that the new offer approved by the Movement includes the partial withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip—especially from Salah al-Din Road, including the Nuseirat junction south of Gaza City, the Morag axis in northern Rafah, and from residential areas.
According to the source, indirect negotiations will begin regarding a long-term truce and its requirements, and an independent Community Support Committee will be empowered to govern the Gaza Strip.
Iran draws red line as Europe threatens nuclear ‘snapback’
As indirect US–Iran nuclear talks inch forward, Europe’s fear of marginalization prompts a risky diplomatic maneuver in Istanbul.
By Vali Kaleji | The Cradle | May 26, 2025
In the backdrop of indirect nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Ministers Majid Takht-Ravanchi and Kazem Gharibabadi met with their European counterparts from France, Germany, and Britain – the so-called E3 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – on 16 May in Istanbul.
The meeting, held at Iran’s Consulate General and hosted by Turkiye, brought together EU Deputy Secretary-General for Political Affairs Enrique Mora and his colleague Olof Skoog, alongside Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Abdullah Celik. The discussions focused on the future of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the status of indirect Iran–US negotiations, and collective efforts to avert further escalation through diplomacy.
Although three earlier rounds of consultations between Tehran and the E3 occurred on 29 November 2024, 13 January, and 24 February 2025, the Istanbul session marked a pivotal moment: the first engagement since the revival of the Iran–US indirect dialogue.
Europe cut out of nuclear talks
Crucially, the EU, much like in the Ukraine peace process, found itself bypassed by Washington. This diplomatic exclusion has intensified Brussels’s urgency to reclaim relevance within the nuclear negotiations framework, apparently even if this means acting as spoiler.
At the heart of the Istanbul summit lies the snapback mechanism – an instrument embedded in the JCPOA allowing any signatory to reimpose all UN sanctions that existed before the 2015 agreement. The clause, originally intended as a safeguard, now threatens to become a geopolitical cudgel.
With the JCPOA’s expiration looming in October 2025, Tehran fears that the E3 may invoke the mechanism as early as this summer, citing Iran’s alleged enrichment beyond 60 percent and its growing stockpile of enriched uranium.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot minced no words during a 28 April address to the UN Security Council, stating that if European security interests are compromised, France “will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago.” His statement, which reverberated through diplomatic circles, was widely interpreted in Tehran as a stark ultimatum.
Iran’s permanent representative to the UN responded forcefully, accusing France of hypocrisy and warning that Paris’s own breaches of the agreement render any activation of the snapback legally indefensible.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed this stance in an op-ed for Le Point, characterizing the Istanbul discussions as “a fragile but promising beginning” while cautioning that “time is running out.” He wrote:
“The decisions we make now will shape Iran–Europe relations in ways that go far beyond this agreement. Iran is prepared to move forward – we hope Europe is, too.”
Following the talks, Gharibabadi wrote on X: “We exchanged views and discussed the latest state of play on nuclear & sanctions lifting indirect negotiations. Iran and the E3 are determined to sustain and make best use of diplomacy. We will meet again, as appropriate, to continue our dialogue.”
British envoy Christian Turner echoed this sentiment, affirming the shared commitment to maintaining open channels of communication.
‘Trigger Plus’
Yet not all assessments of the Istanbul summit were diplomatic. Tehran-based daily Farhikhtegan, aligned with Iran’s conservative establishment, described the session as tense and combative.
According to its report, the E3 tabled severe threats, including a proposal for what they termed “trigger plus” – an augmentation of the original snapback mechanism that would allow preemptive punitive measures without requiring technical justification.
Iranian officials, the newspaper reported, dismissed this demand as not only illegal and baseless but also presented in an “inappropriate” tone. The Iranian side reiterated that while they remain open to EU participation in broader nuclear negotiations, any activation of the snapback mechanism would trigger an immediate Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Mohammad Ghaderi, former editor-in-chief of Nour News – a media outlet close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council – summarized the stance bluntly on social media:
“In the tense talks with Iran on Friday, [the E3] while requesting to participate in Iran–US talks, made non-technical & illegal requests, calling it trigger plus. But Iran’s response: Emphasizing the activation of the Trigger Mechanism will lead to Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT.”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry, in characteristic fashion, neither confirmed nor denied these reports, opting for strategic ambiguity to maintain leverage over multiple negotiation tracks.
The October deadline: Strategic implications
As the October 2025 expiration date draws closer, Iran has accelerated efforts to engage the remaining members of the 4+1 framework – China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany. Trilateral meetings with Moscow and Beijing have underscored Tehran’s strategy of building a multilateral diplomatic buffer against US-European pressure.
However, the snapback clause remains the most potent lever in the E3’s arsenal. According to Article 36 of the JCPOA, any signatory can escalate a compliance dispute to the UN Security Council. Once initiated, this process does not require a vote or consensus, meaning that Russian and Chinese vetoes are nullified.
Should the snapback be triggered, all seven UN Security Council sanctions previously lifted would automatically be reinstated – a scenario with grave consequences for Iran’s economy and its broader regional strategy.
Analysts suggest the E3 may push for this mechanism’s activation as early as July or August, thereby maximizing diplomatic pressure while allowing time to shape global opinion. If that happens, Tehran’s recourse to NPT withdrawal – a threat repeatedly made since 2019 – would likely materialize.
Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi reinforced this red line in response to a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution: “If Europe implements snapback, our answer is to withdraw from the NPT.” As Araghchi, writing again in Le Point, stated unequivocally:
“Iran has officially warned all JCPOA signatories that abuse of the snapback mechanism will lead to consequences – not only the end of Europe’s role in the agreement but also an escalation of tensions that could become irreversible.”
Europe’s desperation for relevance
Europe’s insistence on asserting itself in the JCPOA talks stems from its declining influence across global affairs. From the Ukraine war to the Persian Gulf, the EU has been reduced to a secondary actor. In the Iran file, this marginalization is especially stark.
While Washington and Tehran inch closer to a bilateral formula, Brussels finds itself largely ignored. Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian diplomat, argues:
“Europe’s main concern is that Iran and the United States will reach a bilateral agreement without considering European interests. Many of the Middle East [West Asian] crises spill over into Europe.”
The lack of a coordinated EU Iran policy only compounds this anxiety. Theo Nencini, an Iran expert at Sciences Po Grenoble and Paris Catholic University, concurs:
“The E3 countries have not yet managed to define a coherent and relevant ‘Iran policy.’ From Trump 1.0 to Biden, they have always been accustomed to flatly following American positions.”
Nencini believes that unexpected US–Iran direct talks caught Europeans off guard, prompting them to scramble to get involved in the negotiation process despite the fact that “they have always maintained a very strict attitude towards Iran.”
Diplomacy or detonation?
The Istanbul talks, despite their challenges, represent one of the few remaining diplomatic lifelines between Tehran and the E3.
Should these efforts collapse, the consequences would be profound: Iran could withdraw from the NPT, revise its nuclear doctrine, and prompt potential military escalation involving the US and Israel.
Such a scenario would spell the total disintegration of the JCPOA framework and shatter the fragile architecture of non-proliferation diplomacy built over the past two decades.
With less than five months to avert this trajectory, the onus lies on both parties to preserve what little remains of mutual trust. Yet the margin for error continues to shrink by the day.
Do You Condemn October 7? China Says “No”
By Mike Whitney • Unz Review • May 25, 2025
China has never explicitly condemned the attacks of October 7. In China’s view, October 7 can’t be separated from the more than seven decades of Israeli brutality, apartheid and occupation. Naturally, this has drawn harsh criticism from Israel which expressed its “deep disappointment” over China’s refusal to repudiate Hamas. Even so, China has not caved in to Israeli pressure or softened its rhetoric. Quite the contrary, on February 22, 2024, Ma Xinmin—a legal advisor to China’s Foreign Ministry and a member of the International Law Commission—summarized China’s views of Hamas’ activities during a presentation to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Here’s part of what he said:
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights. The right to self-determination served as the precise legal foundation for this struggle. MEMRI
The fact that China chose a legal scholar—who is a member of the International Law Commission—to argue their case, underscores the importance China places on the broader legal issue of whether the Hamas attack was justifiable under international law. Ma concludes that the attack was not only justifiable, but that the militants involved in the attack had an “inalienable right” to conduct operations that were aimed at ending the Israeli occupation. Here’s Ma:
“The Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right …. The struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terrorism.” MEMRI
Ma’s statement should not be construed as support for the injuring or killing of innocent civilians. It is, however, a powerful defense of the right of persecuted people to participate in armed struggle against their oppressors.
Most readers don’t know that China resisted Israel’s coercion and defended international law as it relates to the October 7 attacks. They don’t know that China took a stand on a matter of principle and never flinched. Of course, most people don’t realize that of the 195 countries in the world, only 13 officially designate Hamas as a “terrorist organization”. Many believe that the terrorist moniker is applied universally and that the rest of humanity see the world through the same distorted lens as people in America. But they don’t. They see Hamas as a national liberation movement that was duly elected to govern Gaza in 2006 following “free and fair” elections that were forced on the Palestinians by the Bush administration. Now Hamas is being used as the pretext for the slaughter women and children in Gaza on an industrial scale. Most Western leaders have expressed their support for Israel’s 18-month bloodbath, while China has not only opposed it but also defended the Palestinians right to armed struggle. Here’s Professor Richard Falk, a leading scholar in international law and former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine:
“The right of resistance was affirmed during the decolonization process in the 1980s and 1990s, and this included the right to armed resistance. However, this resistance is subject to compliance with international laws of war.”
Even the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
Israel does not comply with international laws of war—for example, the entire situation in Gaza is one of the most flagrant violations of Israel’s complete disregard, not only for the laws of war, but for the entire apparatus of international and humanitarian laws.
Palestinians, on the other hand, who are in a permanent state of self-defense, are driven by a different set of values than Israel. One is that they are fully aware of the need to maintain moral legitimacy in their methods of resistance….
“To the extent that there is real evidence of atrocities accompanying the October 7 attack, those would constitute violations, but the attack itself is something that, in context, appears entirely justifiable and long overdue,” Falk said. Palestine Chronicle
This is why Israel has fabricated so many stories about beheaded babies, mass rape and the killing of innocent civilians. The intention is to persuade the public that October 7 was not a legitimate expression of political resistance but a wanton act of terror aimed at ordinary people. Western analysts typically focus on fake atrocities that are used to drown out any reasonable discussion about historic oppression or political realities. Here’s Falk again:
One of the tactics used by the West and Israel has been to almost succeed in decontextualizing October 7 so that it appears to have come out of the blue... The UN Secretary-General was even defamed as an antisemite for merely pointing out the most obvious fact—that there had been a long history of abuse of the Palestinian people leading up to it,” he added, referring to Antonio Guterres’ simply stating that October 7 “did not happen in a vacuum”. (Palestine Chronicle)
“Decontextualizing October 7”?
Precisely. The case for genocide is made on the basis that October 7 can be removed from its broader historical “context” and seen as a “stand alone” event that requires a particularly violent response. But October 7 is not a stand-alone event; it is the unavoidable explosion of collective resistance to decades of ethnic hatred and brutality aimed at a particular people who have been stripped of their civil rights and left to languish in an apartheid state. Here’s Ma again:
“Our state is obliged to promote the realization of the right to self-determination and to refrain from any forceful action, which deprives people of that right. In pursuit of their right to self-determination, these people have the right to engage in struggles, seek and receive support on the basis of that right….
“Numerous UN General Assembly resolutions recognize the legitimacy of struggle by all available means, including armed struggle, by peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation, to realize the right to self-determination.
MEMRI
Naturally, Ma’s speech has largely been blacked out in the western media where anything that doesn’t jibe with the Israeli narrative (that October 7 was an act of terrorism) winds up “on the cutting room floor”. We are confident that if Ma’s powerful moral statement was more widely circulated, Israel’s support in the US would crumble.
China Offers To Rebuild Gaza
China has supported every UN Resolution aimed at providing humanitarian relief to the people in Gaza. They have been staunch supporters of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution from the beginning. They have repeatedly called for an end to the fighting and an immediate ceasefire. They have even met with leaders of Hamas and Fatah (in April and July 2024) to see if reconciliation between the two groups was possible in order to promote Palestinian unity. Finally, China has repeatedly offered to “rebuild Gaza” following the end of hostilities which underscores Beijing’s commitment to an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel.
At every opportunity, China has supported policies aimed at de-escalation, reconciliation and peace. They have exhibited the type of ‘moral clarity’ and moral leadership we would like to see from the United States but never do. It is China’s moral clarity that “guides its decisions, even in complex or ambiguous situations, without being swayed by competing interests or relativism. It’s about aligning actions with a consistent moral framework, often rooted in universal values like honesty, fairness, or compassion.”
Israel’s savagery in Gaza suggests that the West is in a state of irreversible moral collapse. We should be grateful that China is stepping in to fill the void and lead the world into the next century.
On one of the most consequential issues of our time, China has come down on the side of decency and humanity.
Israel’s deadly aid plan for Gaza delayed due to ‘logistical issues’
The Cradle | May 25, 2025
The Israeli and US-led aid distribution mechanism, which was meant to be launched on 25 May, has been delayed, as UN agencies continue to reject participation in the controversial plan.
Correspondent for Israel’s Channel 12, Tamir Morag, confirmed the new postponement of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). He also accused Hamas of looting humanitarian aid, a claim repeated by Israel, which the UN says there is no evidence for.
Security sources cited in other Hebrew media reports say the UN has doubled down on its rejection of the aid distribution plan, and that “logistical issues” have delayed its launch.
This comes after Israeli media cited suppliers as saying last week that nobody is able to fulfill the plan’s “huge” requirements.
GHF was conceived at the very start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. While US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said when the plan was unveiled this month that it would be “inaccurate” to call it an “Israeli plan,” the project has its roots in Tel Aviv.
According to the New York Times, the details of the plan were first discussed by a group of officials and businesspeople with ties to the Israeli government, called the Mikveh Yisrael Forum, who came up with an idea that aims to bypass the UN and all other humanitarian groups in Gaza.
The Washington Post reports that the initiative’s planning documents anticipated the widespread condemnation and likening of the plan’s distribution centers to “concentration camps with biometrics.”
Even some within the Israeli military establishment have questioned whether the plan could potentially lead to chaos, the report says.
GHF relies on the use of private US contractors who will be in charge of several distribution centers in south and central Gaza. Palestinians in other areas who have had their homes destroyed and have already been displaced multiple times will have to travel across the strip under bombardment to secure aid, while forfeiting the right to return home.
The UN has said the mechanism is designed to reinforce Israel’s plan to displace Gaza’s entire population southward.
It has also condemned Israel’s plan to employ facial recognition technology aimed at screening Palestinians in exchange for humanitarian aid.
“It appears the design of a plan presented by Israel to the humanitarian community will increase ongoing suffering of children and families in the Gaza Strip … The use of humanitarian aid as a bait to force displacement, especially from the north to the south, will create this impossible choice: a choice between displacement and death,” UNICEF spokesperson James Elder said earlier this month.
Gaza’s Government Media Office warned on Saturday that the levels of aid currently entering the strip are less than one percent of what the population needs.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to target Palestinian security officers guarding aid and preventing it from being looted by Israeli-backed gangs.
According to multiple reports, ISIS-linked gang leader Abu Shabab, responsible for the looting of aid under Israeli protection throughout the war, has now “established a fortified base in an Israeli-controlled zone in Rafah.”
Featured Video
Fear Is the Mind Killer
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 9, 2022
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Fear Is the Mind Killer
- Israeli strikes kill 10 in southern Lebanon, including 3 rescue workers
- Israeli military ‘failed on all fronts’: Poll
- US at a crossroads: Iran’s firm positions leave Trump no option but to capitulate
- Iran signals decisive response to end US maritime bullying, piracy
- Trump eager for off-ramp in war on Iran, but Netanyahu has him trapped: Former official
- Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ offers ‘limited’ shield against ballistic missiles: Defense official
- Ukraine Seeks to Provoke a Nuclear Conflict: Zakharova
- US squares up to China over Panama Canal
- Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
- If Americans Knew
- How Tony Dokoupil Became the Face of ‘Zionist Fanatic’ Bari Weiss’s CBS
- Far Right Israeli Settler Movement Enters Syria in a Push for “Greater Israel”
- ‘People Have the Right to Be Buried’: In Gaza, Thousands of Palestinians Remain Trapped Under Rubble
- Born during Israel’s genocide: Gaza’s child survivors bear the scars of war
- Who are the women and girls behind Gaza war’s horrific casualty toll?
- Beloved Gaza doctor detained “indefinitely” without charge – Daily Update
- By Week’s End, Trump’s War Will Be Plainly Illegal
- CBS News Reportedly Ousts London Bureau Chief Over Differences With Bari Weiss Over Gaza Coverage
- State Department Says US Is in Conflict With Iran ‘At the Request’ of Israel
- What ceasefire? Israel won’t stop killing in Gaza, Lebanon – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 