US Bombing the Houthis is like Swatting at Buzzing Insects
By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – April 5, 2025
The U.S. bombing campaign against the Houthis is less about securing shipping routes and more about advancing broader geopolitical strategies tied to Israel, Iran, and U.S. domestic politics.
This headline is more than provocative, as it enshrines a critical analysis of what is going on, and this has little to do with the defense of shipping in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, or how Houthis are trying to stand against the continuous genocide of Palestine. It has more to do with the Greater Israel project, keeping Netanyahu out of jail, and for Trump and Republicans to pay the piper for the campaign chest that secured the US election for Trump and his minions.
Attacking the Houthis is the preliminary step of a larger, interconnected geopolitical strategy that includes Greater Israel, shifting the focus from the disaster in Ukraine, and keeping the arms manufacturers as happy as hogs rolling in fresh crap.
On March 15th, too much fanfare from Trump, who promised to use “overwhelming lethal force” the US resumed bombing Houthi controlled Yemen, trying to defeat a movement that has been bombed by either the US or its regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states since 2014 when the Yemeni civil war broke out, with little real effect to date.
The ostensible cause of the attacks appears to have been the Houthi decision to reinstate its blockade of Red Sea traffic heading to Israel, in response to Israel reneging on its ceasefire commitments and blockading, and now, as of Tuesday, 18th March, bombing and invading the Gaza Strip, killing hundreds of civilians in the process.
American attacks on Yemen by the aircraft of the US Navy’s 5th fleet have certainly been spectacular, but their usefulness is seriously in doubt. Despite claims by the USN of strikes on military targets, the majority of casualties are seen to be civilians. US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz says that the Houthi blockade of Israel is causing 75% of US flagged ships to take the much longer route around Africa, and said about the US strikes:
“We’ve hit their headquarters,” Waltz said. “We’ve hit communications nodes, weapons factories and even some of their over-the-water drone production facilities.”
The Houthi leadership has strongly refuted these claims, with a spokesman saying:
“The pictures, scenes, evidence, types of victims, and testimonies of survivors from the targeted sites confirm that it is targeting residential neighbourhoods and innocent civilians, and provide conclusive evidence that the US is deliberately taking the lives of defenceless civilians and destroying the capabilities of our people.”
Given the horrendous rhetoric used by Trump in his posts on his Truthsocial site, where he accused the Houthis of being “barbarians” and went on to say:
“Watch how it will get progressively worse — It’s not even a fair fight, and never will be,” Trump added. “They will be completely annihilated!”
It seems pretty clear that the Houthis are right, and that the US is hitting civilian targets in frustration at not being able to identify legitimate military targets. Trump went on to threaten Iran, saying:
“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
Given Trump’s promises on the election campaign to stop wars, and bring peace, particularly to Ukraine, this rhetoric is rather an about-face. One can only come to the conclusion that Trump is trying to escape from the debacle in Ukraine by distracting the public with another war, this time against Yemen and, one fears, Iran, which also will benefit the real ruler of the US, Benjamin Netanyahu.
But how effective is this likely to be? I believe that in his hubris, egged on by the new Defense Secretary Pete Hesgith, a US Evangelical Christian and rabid Zionist, Trump is repeating the disastrous mistakes of a well-trodden US path of intervention and inevitable failure.
Firing drones and missiles at cargo ships bound for Israel, even without sinking any ships, is a victory for the Houthis, as it forces ships to take the long way around the Cape of Good Hope, and shows the world what the US can do in terms of air superiority is not enough, as to stop these attacks, you would need to send in ground troops, something the US administration would have to be mad to do, as the British could well attest to given their occupation of Yemen in the 19th and 20th centuries.
With regard to the intensity of US air attacks, as with any force of national liberation, like the Algerians, Vietnamese, Angolans, and many others in the 20th century, just surviving is already a form of victory for the Houthis. Every day they hold their ground, they rewrite the script a little. They’re showing that even without matching the U.S. or Saudi Arabia in terms of high-tech weaponry, they can still have massive strategic impact — like forcing global trade routes to detour thousands of miles. That’s asymmetrical warfare in full force.
As the US and its allies know only too well, U.S. air power, while impressive for breaking regular military formations, has a limit. It can punish, but it can’t control the terrain or win hearts and minds from 30,000 feet. Boots on the ground? That’s a whole different ballgame. Politically and militarily, there’s little appetite for another drawn-out Middle East quagmire. The U.S. knows how that ends, Israel knows too!
This whole horse and pony show is becoming a test of global logistics and willpower — not just firepower. The Houthis have leveraged a relatively small amount of resources to cause ripple effects across oil markets, insurance premiums, and shipping delays — even reshaping how the world thinks about “secure” sea lanes. Their damage to the economies of their enemy Israel, and its backers in the US and EU, is out of all proportion to the money spent by themselves.
This is also reflected in the weaponry used, with relatively cheap drones and ballistic missiles needing to be countered by vastly more expensive US air defense missiles and extremely expensive guided bombs. The previous, spectacularly unsuccessful, campaign “Operation Prosperity Guardian” to bring the Houthis to heel after they put a blockade on Israel in response to the genocidal campaign in Gaza, saw vast expenditure of hideously expensive US missiles which were used to shoot down drones that cost around US$ 20,000 per shot:
According to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (as of 2022), the SM-2 costs $2.1 million per unit; the SM-6 costs $4.3 million; and the ESSM Sea Sparrows costs $1.7 million. The destroyers are also fitted with the Rolling Airframe missile, which cost $905,000 in 2022
Nothing of any note has been achieved in cost reduction since then, and the Houthis are repeatedly striking back, with at least four attacks on the USS Harry S Truman and its escorting vessels, forcing rapid expenditure of these expensive weapons, as well as disrupting US strikes. It is no surprise that their resistance is being downplayed by the US, but the reality is that the US is being forced to send a second carrier group, led by the USS Carl Vinson, to support the 5th Fleet strikes.
This does not bode well, with escalation looming, with a joint US strike on Iran likely. One can only think that, drunk with success regarding their overthrow of Assad in Syria, and forgetting their obvious failure to subdue either Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US and Israel want to play the same game with Iran, using Yemen as the trigger, which is almost certainly a major miscalculation.
It as if they are the drunk guy in the casino, who rather than accept his losses, has taken one small win after a series of losses, and bet the house on the result. Iran is a major regional power, with a well-organized, equipped, and trained armed forces, backed by a much greater population than Iraq and Syria combined, and with its own fully developed and capable defense industry.
As for the Houthis, like all guerilla and national liberation forces, the case is that “If they are not losing, they are winning” but are they playing the smart long-term game, or are they at risk of overplaying their hand if this drags out too long? It might only take one incident of them attacking the wrong ship, hitting a neutral vessel and inflicting casualties, and the worldwide support they have garnered by their principled stand in support of the Palestinians, and their bravery in their David vs Goliath battle with Israel and the US, could disappear.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs
David’s Corridor: Israel’s shadow project to redraw the Levant
Through ‘David’s Corridor,’ Israel aims to forge a geopolitical artery stretching from occupied Golan to Iraqi Kurdistan, reshaping West Asia
By Mahdi Yaghi | The Cradle | April 4, 2025
In recent years, the Zionist idea of “David’s Corridor” has surfaced in Tel Aviv’s strategic and political discourse on the reshaping of its geopolitical influence in the Levant. Though the Israelis have made no official announcement, analysts have pointed to this corridor as a covert project aimed at linking Kurdish-controlled northern Syria – backed by the US – to Israel via a continuous land route.
The so-called David’s Corridor refers to an alleged Israeli project to establish a land corridor stretching from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights through southern Syria to the Euphrates River. This hypothetical route would traverse the governorates of Deraa, Suwayda, Al-Tanf, Deir Ezzor, and the Iraqi–Syrian border area of Albu Kamal, providing the occupation state with a strategic overland channel into the heart of West Asia.
A biblical blueprint
Ideologically, the project is rooted in the vision of “Greater Israel,” an expansionist concept attributed to Zionism’s founder, Theodor Herzl. The vision draws on a biblical map extending from Egypt’s Nile to Iraq’s Euphrates.
Dr Leila Nicola, professor of international relations at the Lebanese University, tells The Cradle that David’s Corridor embodies a theological vision requiring Israeli control over Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – a triad central to both biblical lore and regional dominance. Regional affairs scholar Dr Talal Atrissi echoes this view, believing that developments in Syria have lent new geopolitical realism to Israel’s historical ambitions.
Unsurprisingly, the proposed corridor is a lightning rod for controversy, seen by many as a strategic bid to expand Israeli hegemony. Yet significant barriers stand in its way. As Atrissi notes, the corridor cuts through volatile terrain, where actors like Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) remain formidable spoilers. Even a minor act of sabotage could disrupt the project, particularly given the absence of a stable regional environment needed to sustain such a sensitive and expansive route.
Strategically, David’s Corridor aligns with Israel’s enduring policy of cultivating ties with regional minorities – Kurds, Druze, and others – to offset hostility from Arab states. This decades-old “peripheral alliance” strategy has underpinned Israeli support for Kurdish autonomy since the 1960s. The project’s biblical symbolism of expanding “Israel” to the Euphrates, and its strategic calculus, combine to make the corridor both a mythological promise and a geopolitical asset.
Nicola further contextualizes this within the framework of the “ocean doctrine,” a policy Israel pursued by courting non-Arab or peripheral powers like the Shah’s Iran and Turkiye, and forging alliances with ethnic and sectarian minorities in neighboring states.
The doctrine aimed to pierce the Arab wall encircling Israel and extend its geopolitical reach. David’s Corridor fits snugly within this paradigm, drawing on both spiritual mythology and strategic necessity.
Syria’s fragmentation: A gateway
The collapse of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government and the rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa’s Al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have accelerated Syria’s internal fragmentation. Sharaa’s administration inked deals with the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), integrating Kurdish-controlled areas into the nominal Syrian state while cementing Kurdish autonomy. In Suwayda, a separate agreement preserved Druze administrative independence in exchange for nominal state integration.
But Atrissi warns that such sectarian autonomy, even if pragmatic for containing tensions in the short term, risks entrenching divisions and inviting foreign meddling. He notes that the trauma of massacres on Syria’s coast has left minorities, especially the Alawites, deeply skeptical of the central authority in Damascus, pushing them toward local power arrangements. Israel, with its historical penchant for minority alliances, sees an opportunity to entrench its influence under the guise of protection.
Israel’s longstanding partnership with Iraqi Kurdistan is a case in point – a strategic relationship that offers a blueprint for replication in Syria. David’s Corridor, in this reading, is less a logistical imperative and more a political ambition. Should conditions allow, the occupation state may leverage the corridor to encircle Iran and redraw regional fault lines.
A map of the proposed David’s Corridor
A corridor of influence, not infrastructure
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, southern Syria is now a strategic vacuum: Syria’s army is weakened, Turkiye is entangled in its own Kurdish dilemmas, and Iran is overstretched. This power void offers fertile ground for Israel to assert dominance, particularly if regional dynamics continue to favor decentralized, weak governance.
Despite Washington’s reduced military footprint, the US remains committed to containing Iran. Key outposts like the Al-Tanf base on the Syrian–Iraqi border are instrumental in severing the so-called Iranian land bridge from Tehran to Beirut.
Nicola argues that while David’s Corridor is not an explicit US policy, Washington is likely to support Israeli initiatives that align with American strategic goals:
“The United States does not mind Israel implementing the project if it serves its interests, even though it is not part of its immediate strategy. It focuses on reducing Iran’s influence and dismantling its nuclear program, while supporting the path of regional normalization with Tel Aviv.”
The 2020 Abraham Accords, by easing Israel’s diplomatic isolation, have created additional maneuvering space. David’s Corridor – once a fantasy – now appears more plausible amid the regional flux.
Israeli leaders have sent unmistakable signals. On 23 February, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected any Syrian military presence south of Damascus, insisting on demilitarized zones in Quneitra, Deraa, and Suwayda under the pretext of protecting Syria’s Druze minority.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar openly advocated for a federal Syria – a euphemism for fragmentation. Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed that Israeli troops would remain indefinitely in Mount Hermon and the Golan, and called for the dismantling of Syria into federal entities. Media leaks of corridor maps have only fueled speculation.
These moves have triggered outrage in southern Syria, with protests erupting in Khan Arnaba, Quneitra, Nawa, Busra al-Sham, and Suwayda. Yet, as Nicola notes, the new Syrian leadership appears remarkably disinterested in confronting Israel, and Arab states remain largely indifferent, even as the project edges toward realization. Turkiye, by contrast, stands firmly opposed to any Kurdish-led partition of Syria.
Geopolitical stakes and final frontiers
Ultimately, David’s Corridor signals a broader Israeli project to reengineer Syria’s geopolitics: isolate the south militarily, bind the Kurds in alliance, shift the balance of power, and carve a corridor of influence through fractured terrain.
Israel’s objectives are layered. Militarily, the corridor provides strategic depth and disrupts Iran’s land routes to Hezbollah. It enables the flow of arms and intelligence support to allies, especially Kurdish forces.
Economically, it opens a potential oil pipeline from Kirkuk or Erbil – Kurdish-majority, oil-rich areas – to Haifa, bypassing Turkish routes and maritime threats from actors like Yemen’s Ansarallah-allied army. Politically, it solidifies Israeli–Kurdish ties, undermines Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty, and advances the vision of Greater Israel, with the Euphrates as a symbolic frontier.
Yet the corridor is not without risk. It threatens to deepen the region’s instability, antagonize Syria, Turkiye, Iran, and Iraq, and trigger new fronts of resistance. Whether Israel can realize this project depends on the fluid regional calculus and its ability to maneuver within it.
David’s Corridor may still be a project in the shadows – but its implications are already casting a long one across the region.
Policy Reversal: Why Is the U.S. Softening Its Position on Iran?
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – April 5, 2025
In Recent Days, the Trump Administration—Known for Its Hardline Stance on Iran—Has Shown Unexpected Shifts in Rhetoric.
U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steven Whitcoff, who previously advocated for a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, now speaks of the need for “confidence-building” and “resolving disagreements.” This sharp turn in foreign policy strategy raises many questions: What exactly prompted Washington to change its approach? What factors influenced the decision to soften its stance? And most importantly—does the U.S. have a real plan of action, or is this just a temporary tactical maneuver?
An analysis of the situation suggests that the policy shift is tied to a combination of factors—from the failure of sanctions to the Trump administration’s domestic political calculations. Additionally, Iran’s response and that of the international community play a key role in determining how events will unfold.
The Failure of “Maximum Pressure”
In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expecting that harsh sanctions would force Iran to make concessions. The Trump administration believed economic strangulation would either lead to regime change in Tehran or its surrender on the nuclear issue. However, these calculations proved wrong.
Instead of backing down, Iran responded by escalating its nuclear activities. According to the IAEA, Tehran has significantly increased its stockpile of enriched uranium and begun developing more advanced centrifuges. Moreover, the country strengthened ties with Russia and China, finding alternative ways to bypass sanctions. As a result, the “maximum pressure” policy not only failed to achieve its goals but, from Washington’s perspective, worsened the situation by bringing Iran closer to developing nuclear weapons.
Now, Washington seems to have realized that isolating Iran hasn’t worked and is attempting to shift to diplomatic methods. The question, however, is whether it’s too late—Tehran, hardened by bitter experience, is unlikely to agree to new negotiations without serious guarantees.
Another reason for the policy shift may be domestic U.S. issues. Facing economic challenges and a lack of clear successes, President Trump urgently needs a foreign policy win that can be framed as a major achievement of his so-called “new approach.” A full-scale war with Iran is too risky—a scenario that could spell disaster for both the region and the U.S. itself. Thus, the administration is likely betting on a temporary agreement that can be marketed as a “diplomatic breakthrough.” However, this approach risks new problems—if the deal proves short-lived, it will further erode international trust in the U.S.
Internal Divisions in U.S. Leadership
The rhetorical shift also reflects deep divisions within the American leadership. While some officials, like Steven Whitcoff, advocate for negotiations, others—including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—continue to insist on Iran’s complete abandonment of its nuclear program. These contradictions indicate a lack of a unified strategy.
Part of the administration appears to recognize the futility of further pressure, while another faction remains committed to a hardline approach. This division makes any long-term U.S. strategy unstable—a change in administration or even a shift in Congressional power dynamics could undo any agreements reached. Such confusion weakens the effectiveness of U.S. policy and gives Iran additional leverage.
Iran’s Response: Why Tehran Doesn’t Trust the U.S.
Iranian leaders remain deeply skeptical of Washington’s new overtures. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly stated that “threats and bribes do not work on Iran.” The experience of the 2015 JCPOA showed that the U.S. could abandon the deal at any moment, even if Iran fully complied.
After Washington’s unilateral withdrawal, Tehran lost faith in American guarantees. Now, Iran’s leadership demands not only sanctions relief but also legally binding commitments to prevent the U.S. from reneging again.
The situation is further complicated by internal political struggles in Iran. Conservative factions, empowered after the JCPOA’s collapse, oppose any concessions to the West. Additionally, Iran has adapted to sanctions by finding alternative oil markets and deepening cooperation with China and Russia. This reduces the effectiveness of U.S. pressure and diminishes Tehran’s incentives to compromise.
Even Washington’s closest allies, like Israel, have expressed discontent with the policy shift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he distrusts new negotiations with Iran and views any concessions as dangerous.
European nations, however, have long called for renewed dialogue. Germany, France, and the UK—who remained in the JCPOA after the U.S. exit—hope for de-escalation. Yet their influence is limited, as key decisions are made in Washington and Tehran.
Currently, negotiations remain at an impasse. The U.S. offers dialogue but maintains sanctions, while Iran refuses concessions without guarantees. Experts believe Trump is attempting a “good cop, bad cop” tactic, similar to his approach with North Korea. However, unlike in 2015, Tehran is no longer willing to negotiate under pressure. Iranian leaders recognize that time is on their side—the longer the U.S. fails to achieve its goals, the weaker its position becomes.
A Way Out?
An exit from the deadlock—which the U.S. created in its relations with Iran—was discussed during recent trilateral talks between China, Russia, and Iran in Beijing. The meeting produced a comprehensive initiative to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, based on five principles:
- Peaceful Solutions Over Sanctions: All parties must reject coercive pressure and illegal restrictions, prioritizing dialogue. Conditions for renewed negotiations must be created while avoiding escalatory steps.
- Balancing Rights and Obligations: Iran must uphold its commitment against nuclear weapons development, while the international community recognizes its right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.
- Returning to the JCPOA as a Foundation: The initiative calls for renewed focus on the JCPOA, urging the U.S. to demonstrate goodwill and rejoin the process.
- Dialogue Over UN Pressure: Premature involvement of the UN Security Council would undermine trust and stall progress. Confrontational mechanisms would negate years of diplomacy.
- Gradual Steps and Mutual Compromises: Forceful methods are ineffective—only equal consultations can produce a compromise respecting all parties’ interests and global demands.
The softening of U.S. rhetoric is a clear sign that “maximum pressure” has failed. Yet without real concessions and guarantees, negotiations are unlikely to yield a breakthrough. Iran has learned to play the long game, leaving Washington with a choice: serious, equal-footed dialogue or further escalation with unpredictable consequences. For now, the situation remains in limbo, with neither side willing to make the first move.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), Expert on Arab World Affairs
Israel has left over 39,000 orphans in Gaza
Palestinians inspect destroyed building following the Israeli army attack in the Gaza Strip on April 1, 2025 in Khan Yunis, Gaza [Abed Rahim Khatib – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | April 4, 2025
A new report has revealed that more than 39,000 children in Gaza have lost one or both their parents, as the death toll from Israeli attacks on the Strip has risen to 50,523, with 114,776 others injured since 7 October 2023.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics stated that Gaza is experiencing the largest orphan crisis in modern history, with tens of thousands of children losing their parents due to the ongoing Israeli assault.
In a statement issued ahead of Palestinian Children’s Day, which is marked tomorrow, the bureau reported that 39,384 children in Gaza have lost one or both parents after 534 days of Israeli attacks on the Strip. Among them, around 17,000 children have been left without both parents, facing life without support or care.
The Israeli occupation army continues its attacks on civilians in Gaza, decimating the enclave and forcibly displacing its over two million residents.
Euro-Med Monitor: Israel’s brutality in Gaza surpasses all recent forms of terrorism
Palestinian Information Center – April 4, 2025
GAZA – nature of Israel’s crimes in the Gaza Strip must be denounced, particularly the crimes’ horrifying scope, methodical execution, and wide-ranging effects, which surpass those of armed groups like ISIS, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said.
While the crimes committed by ISIS have been widely denounced by the international community, the same community is now mostly silent—and therefore complicit—as Israel pursues a campaign of declared genocide that aims to exterminate the Palestinian people from their homeland, the Euro-Med said.
Israeli occupation forces detonated a robot on Thursday 3 April 2025 rigged with tons of explosives in the heart of the densely populated Shuja’iyya neighborhood in eastern Gaza City. The explosion occurred in an area packed with displaced civilians, though there was no military necessity and no combat activity in the vicinity. This act embodies the conduct of existing terrorist organizations, even surpassing them in brutality and disregard for human life, and bears no resemblance to the conduct of a state bound by international law, regardless of any attempts to distort or evade it.
The explosion killed 21 Palestinians and injured around 100 others, the majority of them women and children. A full residential block was obliterated with its residents still inside, and this is not an isolated incident. Over recent months—particularly in the northern Gaza Strip—Israel has increasingly used explosive-laden robots in residential neighborhoods during its ground incursions. At least 150 such detonations have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, mostly women and children, and caused wide-scale destruction to homes and other essential infrastructure.
A separate atrocity was committed on 23 March, when Israeli forces detained 15 Palestinian rescue workers from the Palestinian Red Crescent and Civil Defense, along with a United Nations staff member, before executing them extrajudicially—some while their hands were bound. Their bodies were dumped into a pit, and the ambulances they had been travelling in were destroyed. This incident is another blatant example of an intentional Israeli crime mirroring—and exceeding—the brutality of groups like ISIS, as it reveals a clear and deliberate intent to annihilate Palestinians both physically and through psychologically terrorizing residents across the Strip.
Euro-Med Monitor field teams have documented thousands of crimes committed by Israeli forces, constituting overwhelming evidence of mass atrocities. These crimes include an unprecedented pattern of violence in recent history, in terms of scale, deliberate targeting, and genocidal intent. A minimum of 58,000 Palestinians have been killed, the majority of them women and children, and most have been buried beneath the rubble of homes deliberately destroyed over their heads, while many were killed by sniper fire with clear intent. Over 120,000 individuals have been injured, and at least 39,000 children have been orphaned. The Gaza Strip’s infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, and schools, has been virtually obliterated.
These acts amount to one of the most extensive and systematic campaigns of extermination in contemporary history, underscoring the urgent need for international accountability, an end to Israeli impunity, and concrete action to halt further atrocities.
Israel’s methods in the Gaza Strip—particularly its mass killing of civilians—bear a striking resemblance to the tactics used by groups the international community has widely condemned as terrorist. However, the atrocities unfolding in the Strip are far more dangerous in terms of scale, brutality, and systematic intent, and cannot be understood merely as a function of violent methods or tools.
The rights group pointed out that these actions cannot be dismissed as random or extreme policies, but rather represent a fully-fledged model of organized state terrorism, driven by a comprehensive blueprint for annihilation and implemented in full view of the international community.
“These crimes are being committed with clear, declared intent to eliminate the Palestinian people as a national and collective entity, uproot those who remain on their land, erase their identity, and ultimately end their collective existence.”
Euro-Med called all states, both individually and collectively, to fulfil their legal obligations and take urgent action to stop Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip in all its forms. This includes implementing concrete measures to protect Palestinian civilians, ensuring Israel’s compliance with international legal norms and the rulings of the International Court of Justice, and guaranteeing full accountability for perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It also stressed the importance of implementing the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against the Israeli Prime Minister and army minister at the earliest opportunity and ensure these individuals’ transfer to international justice.
Furthermore, Euro-Med called on the international community to impose comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel in response to its grave and systematic violations of international law. This includes an arms embargo; the cessation of all political, financial, and military cooperation; asset freezes of implicated officials; travel bans; and the suspension of trade privileges and bilateral agreements that provide Israel with economic benefits, enabling its continued crimes.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Iran Defies Trump’s Ultimatum and Threat of War
Glenn Diesen | April 3, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor, an analyst and an advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses Iran’s rejection of Trump’s ultimatum and the possible nuclear escalation.
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Five martyrs, wounded in US aggression in past hours: Yemen
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2025
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Yemen reported that the number of US airstrikes on Saada Governorate has increased to 27 in the past 12 hours.
Today, reconnaissance aircraft from the US-led coalition targeted a civilian car in the Majz district of Saada governorate, following two airstrikes by warplanes on the same district.
Overnight Wednesday, US aircraft struck the Kitaf district and the Kahlan area, east of Saada governorate.
Alongside the ongoing aggression in Taiz, southern Yemen, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that US aircraft also targeted the communications network in Jabal Namah, located in the Jablah district of Ibb Governorate in central Yemen.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Yemeni Health Ministry spokesperson Anis al-Asbahi reported that five people were killed, five others were injured, and one person went missing in airstrikes on Yemen over the past 24 hours. He emphasized that Yemenis are fully aware of the challenges they face and are prepared to confront them.
Yemen MoH reports 61 martyrs from US aggression
Al-Asbahi has confirmed to Al Mayadeen that the death toll from the US-led aggression on Sanaa and other governorates since mid-March has reached 61 martyrs and 139 wounded.
He also stated that since Yemen began its support operation for Gaza, the US-British-Israeli aggression has left 964 civilian casualties, including 250 martyrs.
This toll reflects data recorded up until April 1.
Since Yemen resumed its operations at sea and against occupied territories in response to the renewed Israeli aggression on Gaza, the United States has intensified its attacks on Yemen, conducting airstrikes on various governorates.
Sights set on Somaliland: The threat of a total US–UK–Israeli takeover
By Kit Klarenberg – The Cradle – April 3, 2025
In recent weeks, Somaliland has drawn unprecedented attention from western media. As Israeli and US officials scramble to find a destination to forcibly relocate Gaza’s population, the globally unrecognized breakaway territory is increasingly floated as a potential solution.
Multiple mainstream reports suggest Tel Aviv and Washington are making quiet overtures to Hargeisa. On 14 March, the Financial Times revealed:
“A US official briefed on Washington’s initial contacts with Somaliland’s presidency said discussions had begun about a possible deal to recognize the de facto state in return for the establishment of a military base near the port of Berbera on the Red Sea coast.”
Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi has made international recognition his central foreign policy objective. Since the territory declared independence in 1991, no country has recognized it as a sovereign state. But late last year, before entering the White House, US President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement that he intended to officially recognize Somaliland, which would make Washington the first foreign capital to do so.
For the internationally isolated statelet, the prospect of a permanent US military footprint, which would shield the East African statelet from Somalia’s endemic instability, is no doubt enormously appealing, especially as it would be attached to official recognition of statehood by a major global power.
Search for a new ‘Nakba’
From Washington’s perspective, the deal would yield far more than just a convenient dumping ground for displaced Palestinians, evicted to make way for Trump’s fantasized “Gaza-Lago.” Somaliland’s strategic location on the Red Sea makes it an ideal staging post for operations against Yemen.
A current map of the Horn of Africa
Such a move would grant the US a critical new foothold in the Horn of Africa at a time when American and French forces are being ejected from countries across the continent at breakneck speed.
It could also serve as a counterweight to China and Russia’s expanding presence in northern Africa. Beijing established its first overseas military base in neighbouring Djibouti in 2017, and has since emerged as an aggressive critic of western policies in the region – while also welcoming Iranian naval vessels at its ports.
The strategic utility of recognizing Somaliland is not lost on Washington’s foreign policy architects. Project 2025 – a sprawling, right-wing policy blueprint by the Heritage Foundation, intended as a roadmap for Trump’s second term—explicitly advocates “[countering] malign Chinese activity” in Africa. It specifically recommended “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the US’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”
Another neocolonial outpost
Keep in mind that Trump’s interest in the territory was made public well before Somaliland was floated as a relocation site for Gaza’s 2.4 million Palestinians. In November 2024, former British defence secretary Gavin Williamson announced he had held “really good meetings” with Trump’s “policy leads” on the matter, expressing confidence that recognition was on the horizon.
Williamson has long been an ardent advocate of Somaliland’s independence, regularly undertaking all-expenses-paid trips to the breakaway territory, and receiving honorary citizenship for his lobbying efforts.
Williamson’s interest exposes a rarely acknowledged truth: Somaliland is, in practice, a modern British colony. Though it claimed independence from Somalia in 1991 and was formally granted independence by Britain in 1960, the territory remains under London’s shadow.
Should Palestinians be forcefully relocated there, they would be trapped in yet another open-air prison – under the watchful eye of British-trained security forces with a long history of violent repression.
‘ASI Management’
In April 2019, British government contractor Aktis Strategy abruptly declared bankruptcy, leaving staff unpaid and suppliers out of pocket, despite having secured tens of millions of pounds from the UK’s Foreign Office for “development” programs across Africa and West Asia.
The Somaliland Chronicle published a detailed exposé on the company’s collapse, which came while it was overseeing a “justice and security sector reform project” in the statelet.
Official records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, London allocated over £18 million (around $23.5 million) to that project alone. It was one of many UK-financed schemes in the breakaway region that placed Somaliland’s state architecture – government, military, judiciary, prisons, police, intelligence – under effective British management.
Internal files reviewed by The Cradle lay bare the extent of this control.
One document details how notorious British intelligence cutout Adam Smith International (ASI) provided “ongoing training and mentoring” to Somaliland’s National Intelligence Agency and Rapid Response Unit, while managing the territory’s forensics services, border surveillance, and even prosecution procedures via the Attorney General’s Office. The British-created Counter-Terrorism Unit was established in 2012 with Foreign Office funds – “under ASI management.”
Elsewhere, ASI boasts of its “proven history of establishing close professional relationships” with senior government, armed forces, police, “security sector,” and Ministry of Defense officials. One file notes the contractor “deployed ex-UK military advisers” to train Somaliland’s army and coastguard intelligence units, “[mentoring] senior officers in leadership, management, and military doctrine,” and even drafted legislation later adopted as law.
Meanwhile, British contractor Albany Associates focused on teaching Somaliland’s leaders the mechanics of propaganda and information warfare. Its mission: to train ministers and senior officials to generate a “steady flow of information” and proactively manage the media, in order to counter independent outlets.
It was noted that “unsatisfied public demand for information” from the government “on nationally significant events” gave independent information sources significant influence locally, which was to be countered at all costs.
In Somaliland, public distrust of their government was fueled by frequent arrests of journalists and media shutdowns, so Albany’s role was to consolidate state control over information – ensuring one narrative, “one voice,” no dissent.
An official document reviewed by The Cradle
A prison camp in waiting
While ASI touted its reforms, documents from another contractor – Coffey International – presented a more candid picture. Somaliland’s military, the files noted, was “the largest and most costly institution of state,” yet evaded oversight, with its funds likely diverted for opaque ends. Accountability for military abuses was virtually nonexistent.
The police, meanwhile, had “a history of applying disproportionate force,” and no “dedicated public order unit.” Coffey proposed creating one within the Special Protection Unit – a paramilitary force protecting foreign organizations and their staff. At the time, the unit had no mandate for crowd control or responding to peaceful protests.
That July 2015 document recommended Somaliland police be trained in the UK by the National Police, covering human rights, crowd engagement, and first aid. The aim: instill “proportionality, lawfulness, [and] accountability” throughout Somaliland’s police forces. Yet if this training occurred, it had no visible impact.
In late 2022, mass protests erupted in the contested city of Las Anod. Somaliland forces responded with lethal force, killing dozens. The crackdown escalated, and in 2023, Somaliland’s military indiscriminately shelled the city. Amnesty International described the attack as “indiscriminate,” targeting schools, hospitals, and mosques, displacing hundreds of thousands and killing scores.
This is the context in which Somaliland appeals to Israel and its western patrons: a brutal, British-run security apparatus capable of extinguishing any form of dissent – ergo, the perfect dumping ground for Gazan refugees. If Washington establishes a base to launch strikes on Yemen, Palestinians could also be held hostage – literal human shields – to deter reprisals from the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces.
One can only hope this depraved plan collapses as swiftly as earlier US–Israeli schemes to expel Gazans to Egypt or Jordan.
The real question now is whether Somaliland’s leaders are desperate enough for international recognition to trade their 34 years of independence for total US–UK–Israeli military, political, and security hegemony.
The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
By Ron Unz • Unz Review • March 31, 2025
We may be witnessing the ongoing destruction of one of the greatest pillars of postwar American global influence and hegemony.
Late last week an astonishing event occurred in American society, and video clips of that incident quickly went viral across the Internet.
A 30-year-old Tufts doctoral student and Fulbright Scholar from Turkey was walking across her Boston-area neighborhood on the way to a holiday dinner at a friend’s house when she was suddenly seized and abducted in the early evening by six masked federal agents of the Department of Homeland Security. The terrified young woman was handcuffed and taken to a waiting car, secretly detained for the next 24 hours without access to friends, family, or lawyers, then shipped off to a holding cell in Louisiana and scheduled for immediate deportation, although a federal judge has now temporarily stayed the proceedings.
Just one of the Tweets showing a short clip of that incident has been viewed more than 4.5 million times, with a much longer YouTube video accumulating another couple of hundred thousand views.
That very disturbing scene seemed like something out of a Hollywood film chronicling the actions of a dystopian American police state, and that initial impression was only solidified once media reports explained why Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the streets of her home town. Her only reported transgression had been her co-authorship of an op-ed piece in the Tufts student newspaper a year earlier sharply criticizing Israel and its ongoing attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.
Apparently, one of the many powerful pro-Israel censorship organizations funded by Zionist billionaires became outraged over her sentiments and decided to make a public example of her, so its minions in the subservient Trump Administration immediately ordered her arrest.
CBS News covered a local protest demonstration demanding the young woman’s release, and quoted the remarks of one of the participants:
“The university campus should absolutely be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and the fact that someone can just be disappeared into the abyss for voicing an idea is absolutely horrifying,” said rally attendee Sam Wachman.
Now supposed that such a scene—for such a reason—had taken place on the streets of Russia, China, Iran, or any other country viewed with great disfavor by our government. Surely that incident would have quickly become the centerpiece of a massive global propaganda offensive aimed at blackening the reputation of the regime responsible. Audiences worldwide would have been forcefully told that the arrest demonstrated the terrible dangers of living in a society lacking the freedoms guaranteed by our own Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I don’t recall seeing any recent propaganda campaigns along these lines, so that suggests that such incidents are extremely rare in those countries.
But unfortunately that is hardly the case in today’s America. A day or two before that Tufts graduate student was snatched off the streets of her city, a 21-year-old Columbia University junior went into hiding to avoid a similar fate after federal agents raided her campus dorm to arrest her. As the Times reported, high school valedictorian Yunseo Chung had moved to the U.S. with her family from South Korea when she was 7, but her permanent residency was suddenly revoked for her public criticism of Israeli policy. She was ordered immediately deported back to a country that she barely even remembered.
This followed the storm of controversy unleashed earlier this month by the very high profile arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student heavily involved in last year’s campus protests against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Seized in an early morning raid on his campus student housing, which he shared with his wife, an American citizen eight months pregnant, he was taken off to detention, first in New Jersey and then transferred to a holding cell in Louisiana, once again with no initial access to his family, friends, or lawyers.
As a Green Card holder—a permanent legal resident of the U.S.—he was considered fully entitled to all the normal rights and privileges of an American citizen, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that his Green Card would be canceled and he would be deported based upon an obscure legal doctrine never previously employed for that purpose, eliciting a strong legal challenge in federal court. Moreover, his transfer from a New Jersey jurisdiction to a different one in the Deep South also seemed to violate normal legal procedures.
A week after that arrest, Ranjani Srinivasan, another Columbia doctoral candidate from India on a Fulbright Scholarship, hurriedly packed her bags and fled the country to Canada when she narrowly missed being arrested by federal authorities who raided her student housing. As the New York Times reported:
“The atmosphere seemed so volatile and dangerous,” Ms. Srinivasan, 37, said on Friday in an interview with The New York Times, her first public remarks since leaving. “So I just made a quick decision.”
A day earlier Rubio explained that he had already authorized the arrest and immediate deportation of more than 300 students around the country for their criticism of Israel, so these particular cases obviously represented merely the tip of a very large iceberg.
In past decades, the academic leadership of a top Ivy League school such as Columbia might have stoutly defended the students in its community. But any such resistance was broken when the Trump Administration suddenly pulled $400 million in annual funding. The demands included full cooperation with the arrest of any students critical of Israeli policies, the creation of a new internal security force to suppress any anti-Israel campus protests, and “receivership” for the university’s prestigious Middle Eastern Studies Program, presumably resulting in firm Zionist control.
Acting President Katrina Armstrong bowed to those demands, sacrificing the academic freedom of her faculty members and the personal freedom of her students. But faced with such enormous conflicting pressures, she then resigned on Friday evening, some seven months after her predecessor had resigned for roughly similar reasons.
That same day newspapers also reported that the top leadership of Harvard University’s equally prestigious Middle Eastern Studies Center had been dismissed, probably ensuring that after more than seventy years this independent academic organization would henceforth become firmly pro-Israel in its orientation. Last year, after Harvard’s previous president had strongly defended academic freedom before a hostile Congressional committee, she was quickly forced to resign.
As I casually examined the home page of the New York Times website on Saturday, I noticed five different articles reporting these striking blows to intellectual freedom at a number of our top American universities, and it’s quite possible that I may have missed one or two others.
- Columbia President Is Replaced as Trump Threatens University’s Funding
- Leaders of Harvard’s Middle Eastern Studies Center Will Leave
- University of Minnesota Student Detained by Immigration Agents
- Targeting of Tufts Student for Deportation Stuns Friends and Teachers
- How Colleges Are Cracking Down on Students Now
For the last several generations, America’s elite academic institutions have been among the most prestigious in the world, drawing top students from across the globe and constituting a central pillar of our country’s soft power. Until last year, no previous case came to mind of an Ivy League president having been abruptly removed for political reasons. But over the last twelve months, four or five different Ivy League presidents have suffered that fate.
Similarly, I had never heard of any previous cases of peaceful college students being arrested by teams of masked federal officers, either seized from their dorm rooms in sudden raids or snatched off the streets of their local city.
Consider an ironic historical comparison. During the early 1950s the Rosenbergs were convicted and executed for their involvement in a Soviet spy-ring that gave our nuclear weapons secrets to Stalin. But as far as I know their arrest was handled in a very subdued fashion, with merely a couple of FBI agents quietly taking them into federal custody despite the capital charges that they faced. So apparently public criticism of Israel is today regarded as a far more serious and dangerous offense than nuclear espionage had been at the absolute height of the Cold War.
Indeed, the closest historical example that comes to mind were the notorious Palmer Raids of late 1919 and early 1920, which led to the deportation of several hundred immigrants. But these round-ups occurred in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution and waves of terrorist bombing attacks across many American cities, with Attorney-General A. Mitchell Palmer narrowly surviving two separate assassination attempts, including a bombing that destroyed his own Washington, DC home. Meanwhile, most of the immigrants arrested and deported were relatively recent arrivals, generally anarchist or Bolshevik radicals who had declared their intent to overthrow the American government.
Perhaps there have been previous examples of college students arrested merely for writing campus newspaper op-eds advocating peaceful and perfectly legal positions. But I don’t recall reading of any such egregious cases in my introductory history textbooks so I tend to doubt it.
One rather strange aspect of the current situation is that no students seem to have been arrested for voicing public criticism of the American government or even President Donald Trump. Only criticism of the Jewish State of Israel or Jews themselves seems to provoke such severe legal repression. This brings to mind a very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire:
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Since World War II elite American universities have tended to attract the best and the brightest young men and women from around the world, thereby shaping the minds of so many future global leaders. So I suspect that these shocking news stories of harsh ideological crackdowns on academic freedom and sudden dramatic arrests by masked federal agents are already reverberating around the world, severely damaging one of the few remaining pillars of American geopolitical dominance.
Perhaps only small numbers of ordinary Americans have been following the sudden, desperate plight of these top students from Turkey, South Korea, or India, but I think that a very large fraction of the educated elites of those important American allies are fully aware of what has transpired, and they are utterly horrified.
Under the control of its pro-Israel masters, the leading figures of the Trump Administration seem determined to severely wound or actually destroy the foremost institutions of our globally-dominant system of higher education.
Indeed, even before the latest round of these striking incidents, the eminent political scientist John Mearsheimer had declared that the Israel Lobby posed the greatest threat to American freedom of speech, with his views strongly seconded by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and also former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi:
Although I was deeply shocked by these harsh Trump Administration attacks against freedom of speech and academic freedom, perhaps I should not have been. In many respects, they merely extended what had already occurred last year under his equally pro-Israel Democratic predecessor President Joseph Biden, as I had covered at the time in numerous articles.
For example, almost eleven months ago in early May 2024 I discussed the ongoing waves of university protests and the reasons behind their appearance, as well as the unprecedented crackdowns used to suppress them, a reaction so totally different than what had occurred regarding any previous campus political activism. Given the very harsh legal sanctions now imposed upon many of the participants, I think it’s worth revisiting that history at length:
From the years of my childhood I’d always been aware that political activism and protests were a regular feature of college life, with the 1960s movement against our Vietnam War representing one of its peaks, an effort widely lauded in our later textbooks and media accounts for its heroic idealism. During the 1980s I remember seeing a long line of crudely constructed shanties protesting South African Apartheid that spent weeks occupying the edges of the Harvard Yard or perhaps it was the Stanford Quad, and I think around the same time other shanties and protesters at UCLA maintained a long vigil in support of the Jewish Refuseniks of the USSR. Political protests seemed as much a normal part of college years as final exams and had largely replaced the hazing rituals and wild pranks of traditional fraternities, which were increasingly vilified as politically incorrect by hostile social censors among the students and faculty.
Over the last decade or so, the Black Lives Matter movement raised such nationwide protests by college students to new heights, both on and off campus, often involving large marches, sit-ins, or vandalism, and this may have been propelled by the increasing influence of smartphones and social media. Meanwhile, the mainstream media regularly praised and promoted this “racial justice movement,” which reached its sharp peak following the death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. That incident triggered a massive wave of generally youthful political protests, riots, and looting that engulfed some 200 cities across America, the worst urban unrest since the late 1960s. But unlike that earlier era, most of our establishment media and political class fiercely denounced any suggestions that the police be deployed to quell the violence. Indeed, in many or most cases local law enforcement stood down and did nothing, even as some of their political masters loudly raised the outcry “Defund the Police!”
During those years many universities became heavily caught up in such controversies. Yale renamed its Calhoun residential college in early 2017 and the list of name changes due to the 2020 George Floyd protests is so long that it has its own Wikipedia page, a list that included some of our most storied military bases such as Ft. Bragg and Ft. Hood. Verbal or even physical attacks against the symbols and statues of America’s most famous presidents and national heroes became quite common and were often favorably reported in the media, with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Christopher Columbus all being vilified and denounced, sometimes with elite endorsement. A lead opinion piece in the New York Times called for the Jefferson Memorial to be replaced with a towering statue of a black woman while one of the regular Times columnists repeatedly demanded that all monuments honoring George Washington should suffer a similar fate. Many observers argued that America almost seemed to be undergoing its own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution amid widespread claims that much of our entire historical past was irretrievably tainted and therefore had to be expunged from the public square.
Most of these political protests, especially those on college campuses, were widely hailed by those holding the media megaphones as signifying one of the greatest virtues of American democracy. The many elite defenders of such social and cultural upheavals argued that these events demonstrated the great strength of our society, which freely allowed the fiercest public attacks against our most sacred national icons and heroes. Americans accepted the sort of searing self-criticism that would surely be permitted almost nowhere else in the world.
That long history of permitting or even glorifying public protests against perceived injustices had naturally been absorbed and taken to heart by the young college students who began their classes in September 2023. Then within weeks, a remarkably daring surprise raid by the Hamas militants of long-besieged Gaza caught the Israelis napping and surmounted the high-tech defenses that had cost perhaps a half-billion dollars to construct. Many hundreds of Israeli soldiers and security officers were killed along with similar numbers of civilians, with most of the latter probably dying from the friendly-fire of Israel’s own panic-stricken and trigger-happy military units. Some 240 Israeli soldiers and civilians were captured and taken back to Gaza as prisoners, with Hamas hoping to exchange them for the freedom of the many thousands of Palestinian civilians who had been held for years in Israeli prisons, often under brutal conditions.
As usual, our overwhelmingly pro-Israel mainstream media portrayed the attack in extremely one-sided fashion, devoid of any historical context, a pattern that had been followed for three generations. As a result, Israel received an enormous outpouring of public and elite sympathy as it mobilized for a retaliatory attack against Gaza. Within days, our own Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew to Israel declaring that he came “as a Jew” and pledging America’s unwavering support in that moment of crisis, sentiments completely echoed by President Joseph Biden and his entire administration. But the Hamas fighters and their Israeli captives were hidden in a network of fortified tunnels and rooting them out might produce heavy casualties, so Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors decided upon a different strategy.
Instead of attacking Hamas, Netanyahu took advantage of the wave of global sympathy by unleashing an unprecedented military assault against Gaza’s more than two million civilians, apparently intending to kill huge numbers of them and drive the remainder into Egypt’s Sinai desert, allowing Israel to annex their territory and resettle it with Jews. Soon afterward, the Israeli government began distributing assault rifles to the Jewish Settlers of the West Bank, ordering some 24,000 of those automatic weapons for that purpose. Putting such armaments into the hands of religious fanatics would surely lead to local massacres and these might provide an excuse for driving all those millions of Palestinians over the border into Jordan. The ultimate result would be the creation of a racially-pure Greater Israel stretching “From the River to the Sea,” the longstanding dream of the Zionist movement. So if he were successful, Netanyahu’s place in Jewish history might become a glorious one, with his many venal sins and blunders easily overlooked.
As American airlifts supplied an unending flood of the necessary munitions, the Israelis began a massive aerial bombardment campaign against densely-populated Gaza and its helpless residents. Secure in their underground tunnels, relatively few Hamas fighters were killed, but Gaza’s civilians suffered devastating losses, much of it inflicted by two thousand pound bombs, almost never previously deployed against urban targets. Large portions of Gaza were soon transformed into moonscapes, with some 100,000 buildings destroyed, including hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, universities, government offices, bakeries, and all the other infrastructure necessary for maintaining civilian life. After just a few weeks, the Financial Times reported that the destruction inflicted upon much of Gaza was already worse than had been suffered by German cities after years of Allied bombing attacks during World War II.
Although Netanyahu was strictly secular, he played to his religious base by publicly declaring the Palestinians to be the tribe of Amalek, whom the Hebrew God had commanded be exterminated down to the last newborn baby. Many other top Israeli leaders voiced very similar genocidal sentiments, and some of the more zealously religious Israeli soldiers and commanders probably took those statements quite literally.
This gigantic bloodlust was further inflamed as the Israeli government and its supportive propagandists began promoting outrageous Hamas atrocity-hoaxes such as beheaded or roasted Israeli babies, sexual mutilations, and gang-rapes. The notoriously pro-Israel global media credulously reported these stories, using them to deflect attention from the enormous ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians. To ensure that the coverage remained one-sided, the Israelis targeted independent journalists in Gaza for death, killing some 140 of them over the last few months, a figure as large as the combined total in all the world’s other wars over the last several years.
With Israel’s leaders publicly declaring their genocidal plans for their Palestinian enemies and Israeli troops committing the greatest televised massacre of helpless civilians in the history of the world, international organizations gradually came under strong pressure to involve themselves in the ongoing conflict. In late December, South Africa filed a 91-page legal brief with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide. Within a few weeks the ICJ jurists issued a series of near-unanimous rulings supporting those charges and declaring that the Gazans were at serious risk of suffering a potential genocide at Israel’s hands, with Israel’s own appointed judge, a former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, concurring in most of those verdicts.
But instead of backing off, Netanyahu’s government merely redoubled its attacks against Gaza, tightening the blockade of food shipments by banning the UN organization responsible for distributing them. The Israelis apparently believed that the combination of starvation, bombs, and missiles would be the most effective means of killing or driving out all the Palestinians.
In past decades, these horrifying events might have gone relatively unnoticed, with the overwhelmingly pro-Israel gatekeepers of our mainstream media ensuring that little if any of this distressing information reached the eyes or ears of ordinary Americans. But technological developments had changed this media landscape since video clips on relatively uncensored social platforms such as TikTok and Elon Musk’s Twitter now easily circumvented that blockade. Despite their decades of suffering and oppression, Gaza’s Palestinians were a fully modern people, well-equipped with smartphones, and the scenes they filmed were shared worldwide, quickly attracting huge audiences among the younger Americans who relied upon social media as their primary source of news.
For generations, college students had been heavily indoctrinated with the horrors of the Holocaust, endlessly told that they must never remain silent while helpless men, women, and children were brutally attacked and slaughtered. The images they now saw of devastated cities and dead or dying children seemed exactly like something out of the movies, but they were instead happening in real-time in the physical world.
A couple of years earlier, the Trump and the Biden Administrations had both jointly proclaimed that the Chinese government was guilty of “genocide” against its Uighur minority despite lack of any evidence that significant numbers of Uighurs had been harmed let alone killed. So by that standard, the total destruction of Gaza and the massive slaughter or deliberate starvation of millions of its people obviously constituted an enormous “genocide,” and within weeks student activists all across college campuses had taken up that cry and begun organizing public protests against the horrendous massacre that Israel was committing.
Three years earlier, a lifelong career criminal named George Floyd had died of a drug overdose while in police custody, and a single, highly-misleading video of his last moments had provoked the greatest wave of American public protests since the late 1960s. So it was hardly surprising that the widespread dissemination of hundreds or thousands of videos showing dead and mutilated Gazan children inspired a powerful protest movement. But this time, instead of being praised for their humanitarian commitment, those students—and the university administrators who allowed their protests—were ferociously attacked and punished as I described at the time:
With graphic images of devastated Gaza neighborhoods and dead Palestinian children so widespread on Twitter and other social media outlets, polls have revealed that a majority of younger Americans now favor Hamas and the Palestinians in their ongoing struggle with Israel. This is a shocking reversal from the views of their parents, which had been shaped by generations of overwhelmingly pro-Israel material across broadcast television, films, and print publications, and such trends are only likely to continue now that Israel is being prosecuted in the International Court of Justice by South Africa and 22 other nations, accused of committing genocide in Gaza.
As a consequence of these strong youthful sentiments, anti-Israel demonstrations have erupted at many of our universities, outraging numerous pro-Israel billionaire donors. Almost immediately, some of the latter launched a harsh retaliatory campaign, with many corporate leaders declaring that they would permanently blacklist from future employment opportunities any college students publicly supporting the Palestinian cause, underscoring these threats with a widespread “doxxing” campaign at Harvard and other elite colleges.
A few weeks ago, our uniformly pro-Israel elected officials entered the fray, calling the presidents of several of our most elite colleges—Harvard, Penn, and MIT—to testify before them regarding alleged “antisemitism” on their campuses. Members of Congress severely brow-beat these officials for permitting anti-Israel activities, even ignorantly and absurdly accusing them of allowing public calls for “Jewish genocide” on their campuses.
The responses of these college leaders emphasized their support for freedom of political speech but were deemed so unsatisfactory by pro-Israel donors and their mainstream media allies that enormous pressure was exerted to remove them. Within days, the Penn president and her supportive Board chairman had been forced to resign, and soon afterward Harvard’s first black president suffered the same fate, as pro-Israel groups released evidence of her widespread academic plagiarism to drive her from office.
I am unaware of any previous case in which the president of an elite American college had been so rapidly removed from office for ideological reasons and two successive examples within just a few weeks seems an absolutely unprecedented development, having enormous implications for academic freedom.
I’d think that most of these students were absolutely stunned at such reactions. For decades, they and their predecessors had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering even a sliver of such vicious retaliation, let alone an organized campaign that quickly forced the resignation of two of the Ivy League presidents who had allowed their protests. Some of their student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protesters were harshly threatened, but the horrifying images from Gaza continued to reach their smartphones. As Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL had previously explained in a leaked phone call, “We have a major TikTok problem.”
Indeed, the Israelis continued to generate an avalanche of gripping content for those videos. Mobs of Israeli activists regularly blocked the passage of food-trucks, and within a few weeks, senior UN officials declared that more than a million Gazans were on the verge of a deadly famine. When the desperate, starving Gazans swarmed one of those few food delivery convoys allowed through, the Israeli military shot and killed more than 100 of them in the “Flour Massacre” and this was later repeated. All these horrific scenes of death and deliberate starvation were broadcast worldwide on social media, with some of the worst examples coming from the accounts of gleeful Israeli soldiers, such as their video of the corpse of a Palestinian child being eaten by a starving dog. Another image showed the remains of a bound Palestinian prisoner who had been crushed flat while still alive by an Israeli tank. According to a European human rights organization, the Israelis had regularly used bulldozers to bury alive large numbers of Palestinians. UN officials reported finding mass graves near several hospitals, with the victims found bound and stripped, shot execution-style. As Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin has pointed out, the behavior of the Israeli Jews does not seem merely evil but “cartoonishly evil,” with all their blatant crimes seeming to be based upon the script of some over-the-top propaganda-film but instead actually taking place in real life…
These grim developments have naturally sparked a continuing wave of student protests condemning Israel for committing these monstrous crimes and our own Biden Administration for enabling them with money and munitions. Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is one of our highest-ranking mainstream academics, a very sober-minded scholar of the Realist School, and in an interview last week he expressed little surprise at these matters. After all, he pointed out, Israel was obviously an Apartheid-state currently committing a genocide before the eyes of the entire world so political protests on college campuses were only to be expected.
Throughout these last few months, pro-Israel partisans have regularly denounced the anti-Zionism of their opponents as antisemitic and insisted that it be suppressed. Back in February I had noted the ironic implications of their position:
This is certainly an odd situation, warranting careful analysis and explanation. The word “antisemitism” merely means criticizing or disliking Jews, and in recent years, Israel’s partisans have demanded with some success that the term should be extended to encompass anti-Zionism as well, namely hostility to the Jewish state.
But let us suppose that we concede the latter point and agree with pro-Israel activists that “anti-Zionism” is indeed a form of “antisemitism.” Over the last few months, the Israeli government has brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of helpless civilians in Gaza, committing the greatest televised massacre in the history of the world, with its top leaders using explicitly genocidal language to describe their plans for the Palestinians. Indeed, the South African government submitted a 91 page legal brief to the International Court of Justice cataloging those Israeli statements, prompting a near-unanimous ruling by the jurists that millions of Palestinians faced the prospect of genocide at Israeli hands.
These days most Westerners claim to regard genocide in a decidedly negative light. So does this not syllogistically require them to embrace and endorse “antisemitism”? Surely a visitor from Mars would be very puzzled by this strange dilemma and the philosophical and psychological contortions it seems to require.
It is rather surprising that the extremely “politically correct” ruling elites of America and the rest of the Western world are loudly cheering on the racially-exclusivist State of Israel even as it kills enormous numbers of women and children and works very hard to starve to death some two million civilians in its unprecedented genocidal rampage. After all, the far milder and more circumspect regime of Apartheid South Africa was universally condemned, boycotted, and sanctioned for merely the tiniest sliver of such misdeeds.
An important turning point may have come on April 17th when Columbia University President Minouche Shafik, herself of Egyptian origins, was raked over the coals by a Congressional Committee for permitting anti-Israel protests on her campus. Her interrogators claimed that these were “antisemitic” acts and caused some of Columbia’s Jewish students to “feel unsafe,” a dire situation that seemingly trumped both freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Shafik may or may not have agreed with those arguments, but she surely remembered that just a few months earlier her counterparts at Harvard and Penn had both been summarily purged for giving the wrong answers, and she hardly wished to share their fate. So she firmly promised to root out all such public antisemitism at her university and soon afterward 100 helmeted NYC riot police were invited onto the campus to crush the demonstrations and arrest the protesters, mostly charging the latter with “trespassing,” a rather strange accusation given that they were enrolled students on the grounds of their own campus.
This sort of harsh and immediate police crackdown seems almost unprecedented in the modern history of college political protests. Back in the 1960s, there were a few scattered cases of police being called in to arrest militant protesters who had seized and occupied administrative offices at Harvard, paraded around with firearms at Cornell, or burned down a campus building at Stanford. But I have never heard of peaceful political protesters being arrested on the grounds of their own college merely for the content of their political speech.
Although the crackdown at Columbia demanded by those members of Congress was obviously intended to quell American campus protests, it predictably had the opposite effect. Scenes of burly, helmeted riot police arresting peaceful college students on their own campus went viral on social media, inspiring a wave of similar protests at numerous other colleges across the nation, with police arrests quickly following in most locations. By latest count, some 2,300 students have now been arrested at dozens of universities.
The actions by the Georgia State Police at Emory University seemed particularly outrageous, and a Tweet containing a clip of one of those incidents has already been viewed some 1.5 million times. A 57-year-old tenured professor of Economics named Carolyn Frohlin was concerned at seeing one of her own students being wrestled to the pavement and walked towards him only to find herself brutally thrown to the ground, hogtied, and arrested by a couple of hulking officers led by a sergeant. CNN anchor Jim Acosta was utterly shocked when he reported this story…
Even worse scenes took place at UCLA as an encampment of peaceful protesters was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. A professor of History described her outrage as the nearby police stood aside and did nothing while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, with 200 of the victims then arrested. According to local journalists, the violent mob had been organized and paid by pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman.
I have never previously heard of organized mobs of outside thugs being allowed to violently assault peaceful American student protesters on their own campus, something that seems far more reminiscent of turbulent Latin American dictatorships. The closest example that comes to mind might be the notorious 1970 “Hard Hat Riot” in New York City in which hundreds of pro-Nixon construction workers battled similar numbers of anti-war protesters on the streets of lower Manhattan, an incident so infamous that it has an extensive Wikipedia page of its own.
However, a somewhat different but much closer and more recent analogy may exist. After Donald Trump launched his unexpectedly successful presidential campaign, right-wing, pro-Trump speakers invited to college campuses were regularly harassed and assaulted along with their audiences by mobs of violent antifa, with many of the latter apparently recruited and paid for the purpose.
This sort of very physical “deplatforming” was intended to ensure that their threatening ideas never reached impressionable college students and led conservatives to begin organizing their own groups such as the Proud Boys to provide physical protection. Violent clashes occurred at Berkeley and some other colleges, while similar antifa riots in DC disrupted Trump’s inauguration. From what I remember, most of the organizers and financial backers of these violent antifa groups seemed to be Jewish, so perhaps it’s not surprising that other Jewish leaders have now begun employing very similar tactics to suppress different political movements that they regard as distasteful.
Some years ago a former senior AIPAC official once boasted to a friendly journalist that if he wrote anything on a simple napkin, within 24 hours he could get signatures of 70 Senators to endorse it, and the political power of the ADL is equally formidable. Therefore it was hardly surprising that last week an overwhelming bipartisan 320-91 majority in the House passed a bill broadening the meaning of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the anti-discrimination policies of the Department of Education by codifying the definitions used in our Civil Rights laws to classify those ideas as discriminatory.
Although I haven’t tried to read the text, the obvious intent is to force colleges to expunge such noxious activities as anti-Israel protests from their campus community or face loss of federal funds. This represents a striking attack against academic freedom as well as America’s traditional freedom of speech and thought, and may also pressure other private organizations to adopt similar policies. In a particularly ironic twist, the definition of antisemitism used in the bill clearly covers portions of the Christian Bible, so the ignorant and compromised Republican legislators have now wholeheartedly endorsed banning the Bible in a country in which 95% of the population has Christian roots.
Israel/Gaza: The Masks Come Off in American Society
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 6, 2024 • 6,800 Words
Until now, revocation of a permanent residency Green Card could only occur if its holder had committed a serious felony such as murder or rape, but the empowered pro-Israel partisans of the Trump Administration have now stretched that law to include criticism of Israel or Jews, arguing that such criticism undermined the vital American national goal of combatting antisemitism across the world. When combined with last year’s bipartisan Congressional enactment of the Antisemitism Awareness Act, this might set a legal precedent for actually criminalizing such political views, especially if these can be portrayed as “providing material support” to such officially-designated terrorist organizations as Hamas.
Perhaps despite the determined efforts of the ADL and similar organizations, this legal transformation will not occur. But then again I had never expected to see masked federal agents abducting university students for writing campus newspaper op-eds criticizing Israel.
Similarly, consider the mass arrests and long prison sentences of the January 6th protesters in DC. Nearly all of the defendants had been guilty of nothing more than trespassing and perhaps petty vandalism, but their severe punishment demonstrated that strong ideological and media pressure can successfully force American courts to stretch the law in extreme ways in order to severely punish individuals engaging in political activity that has been sufficiently demonized.
From a broader perspective, we have already seen developments that suggest American society and its political life have reached a very strange point.
Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are earnest young Jewish progressives who run the Grayzone, a webzine and YouTube channel of their own. In several articles last year, I noted their lengthy discussion of how the pro-Israel donor class had recently crushed any political dissent within the Democratic Party, contrary to the overwhelming views of its voter base.
In that same livestream, Blumenthal and Maté also focused on the methods used to keep American elected officials in line on this issue, noting that a few days ago Zionist billionaires spent an almost unprecedented $8 million to defeat Rep. Cori Bush in her own Democratic primary, angry that the black progressive member of “the squad” had called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Just a few weeks earlier, roughly twice as much money had been spent by similar individuals for very similar reasons to successfully eliminate her close political ally Rep. Jamaal Bowman.
Those two primary races were by far the most expensive in American history, and in their aftermath most members of Congress must surely realize that they only remain in office at the sufferance of AIPAC and its ideological allies. Although leading progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced the role of big money in those primary races, she was obviously too fearful of pro-Israel donors to even mention whose big money had been involved. The Grayzone editors were far more candid and accurately characterized the dollars as being deployed by “the foreign agents of an Apartheid state.”
These incidents seem to suggest a rather peculiar situation. It appears that American elected officials will regularly be removed from office if they are deemed insufficiently loyal to a certain foreign country, hardly the sort of governmental framework usually discussed in our political science textbooks.
Despite their longstanding coverage of the Middle East conflict, I do not think that either of the Grayzone editors had ever contemplated the horrors currently being inflicted upon the suffering Palestinians, nor the totally slavish support for Israel expressed by the entire Biden Administration. These shocking developments prompted ideological reassessments and in May I’d described some ironic statements they had made in an earlier podcast:
This massive suppression of all political opposition to Zionism through a mixture of legal, quasi-legal, and illegal means has hardly escaped the notice of various outraged critics. Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are young Jewish progressives very sharply critical of Israel and its current attack on Gaza, and in their most recent livestream video a day or two before that Congressional vote, they agreed that Zionists were the greatest threat to American freedom and that our country was “under political occupation” by the Israel Lobby.
They may or may not have been aware that their angry denunciation closely paralleled one of the most notorious Far Right phrases of the last half-century, which condemned America’s existing political system as nothing more than ZOG, a “Zionist Occupation Government.” Over time, obvious factual reality gradually becomes apparent regardless of ideological predispositions.
By August, I noticed that they had begun explicitly using that incendiary term in their most recent podcast:
That particular article of mine proved quite popular so it’s possible that my remarks may have directly or indirectly found their way to those individuals. Whether or not that was the case, in their current podcast they mentioned that although they’d always dismissed “ZOG” as some ridiculously antisemitic expression, recent events had demonstrated its reality, and Americans were obviously now living in “one nation under ZOG.” I think this marked an important step forward in their understanding of our world.
Soon afterward, their Grayzone channel was temporarily banned from YouTube, and when it returned a week later, the two hosts nervously joked about the acronym they must carefully avoid uttering, using several rhyming words to enlighten their audience. I suspect that many other thoughtful Americans have also recently begun entertaining notions that they would have always previously dismissed as ridiculous.
But over the last six months, these unfortunate trends have merely accelerated. So a couple of weeks ago the initial Columbia University arrest prompted them to release a new Grayzone podcast that they entitled “Shalom, the Occupation’s Home.”
Blumenthal emphasized that Americans were “living under some kind of Zionist occupation” and the two hosts then joked about how useful it would be if someone could come up with a catchy, three-letter acronym to describe our national predicament. They did so again later in the same show as they described the overwhelming Zionist control over the American government.
Such cautious circumlocutions are quite understandable given the very real risk of YouTube deplatforming, but individuals who have long since suffered that fate can afford to speak much more boldly.
As I have emphasized, obvious factual reality produces a certain amount of descriptive convergence even across the most disparate ideological camps. Late last year a fierce right-winger named Stew Peters released a video documentary entitled “Occupied” on many of these same issues and other related ones, running close to two hours. Although it unfortunately contained quite a lot of misinformation, I’d say that at least 70-75% of the material was correct, and it included many video clips that I hadn’t previously seen.
Although it was originally freely released across the Internet, those copies no longer seem available for viewing, but apparently it can still be watched on his website by anyone who registers with an email address.
Last week I published a lengthy article summarizing the strong, even overwhelming evidence that Israel and its American collaborators had been responsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers. One of the leading motives for those killings had been the determination of the Kennedys to break the growing political power of the nascent Israel Lobby.
- How Israel Killed the Kennedys
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words
Now six decades later, that same political force has metastasized to such an extent that it largely controls both of America’s major political parties and nearly all the members of Congress, and may now be on the verge of successfully eliminating our traditional constitutional rights, including freedom of political speech. When university students are snatched off city streets by masked federal agents merely for writing an op-ed in their campus newspapers, matters have clearly reached a very perilous state in American society.
Related Reading:
Germany’s CDU-SPD Coalition Eyes Stricter Online Speech Controls
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 31, 2025
Germany may soon tighten its grip on digital speech even further, as internal documents obtained by BILD from the ongoing coalition talks between the center-right CDU (led by Friedrich Merz) and the center-left SPD (headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz) point to an unsettling agenda: expanding the state’s authority to police so-called “disinformation.”
Behind closed doors, the prospective coalition appears to be crafting policies that would significantly broaden state influence over what can and cannot be said online — particularly on social media platforms. These proposals, originating from the coalition’s “Culture and Media” working group, show a clear intent to escalate pressure on platforms like X and intensify efforts to suppress content labeled as “fake news.”
The push is rooted in the belief, echoed in the coalition’s exploratory paper, that “disinformation and fake news” pose a danger to democracy. But the negotiating paper goes even further, declaring: “The deliberate dissemination of false factual allegations is not covered by freedom of expression.” This phrase, quoted by BILD, lays the groundwork for potentially sweeping restrictions on speech, raising serious alarms among legal experts and free speech advocates.
The document argues that a supposedly independent media regulatory body must be empowered to crack down on so-called “information manipulation,” as well as “hatred and incitement” — all under the vague condition that it adheres to “clear legal requirements.” But when the government or its proxies begin defining what qualifies as misinformation, the door swings wide open for politically motivated censorship.
Many will see this as a dangerous step toward criminalizing dissent. Legal scholar Volker Boehme-Neßler of the University of Oldenburg told BILD, “Lies are only prohibited if they are punishable, for example in the case of incitement to hatred. Otherwise, you can lie.” He also stressed that the boundary between fact and opinion is often blurry and contested: “It is not a simple question of what is a statement of fact and what is an expression of opinion. In most cases, courts interpret freedom of expression very broadly.”
The move mirrors broader concerns raised internationally. US Vice President JD Vance previously slammed Germany’s trajectory on both mass migration and censorship, warning that Berlin’s crackdown on dissent risks becoming self-destructive.
With political speech increasingly vulnerable to arbitrary classification as misinformation, critics worry that these new policies represent not a defense of democracy, but an erosion of one of its most fundamental pillars: the right to free and open debate.
Israel uses human shields in Gaza ‘at least six times a day,’ says Israeli officer
MEMO | April 1, 2025
Trump: ‘Very Bad Things are Going to Happen.’ Netanyahu Wants the U.S. to Destroy Iran.
By Dennis J. Kucinich | April 1, 2025
In my article, “The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the U.S. Economy,” I reminded readers of how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been behind the push for America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Iran. I reviewed the severe economic consequences for the U.S. if it attacks Iran. Today, I cite the human health and atmospheric effects of a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. The resulting nuclear fallout would bring a catastrophe unprecedented in human history.
Last week, President Trump said “very bad things are going to happen” to Iran, if that nation’s leaders do not sign a new nuclear deal. The President is right. He can make very bad things can happen to Iran.
But Iran is not the only country to which “bad things” are going to happen if Iran’s nuclear research infrastructure is destroyed by the U.S., as is revealed by a careful study of the spread of radiation created by the promised bombings.
America has been Netanyahu’s pawn for decades. Will the wealth, lives and security of our nation be sacrificed yet further to an agenda which brings only debt to our nation and death to innocents abroad?
The return of Donald Trump to the White House for a second term has enabled Netanyahu’s right-wing party to accelerate the pulverization of Gaza, expand settlements and to repel the Houthis pro-Gaza attacks on Red Sea shipping.
Netanyahu viewed Trump’s first election in 2016 as a new opportunity to topple Iran’s leadership. Trump, in partnership with Netanyahu, withdrew the U.S. from a multi-lateral agreement which limited Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief.
An attack by B-2 bombers on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would destroy the targeted sites, and unleash radioactivity endangering the lives of tens of millions in Iran and hundreds of millions beyond. Due to radioactive drift, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also would be severely impacted.
In practical terms, given proximity to Iran, and the direction of the wind, high levels of radiation-induced illness, some fatal, and sharp increases in cancer and birth defects would occur. Radiation would contaminate and ruin food supplies, agricultural land, farm animals, and water resources hundreds and even thousands of miles from Iran.
The eastern regions of Turkey, northwestern India, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan would be exposed to moderate contamination. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Egypt’s Sinai could be affected, depending on the wind.
Israel has long fanned existential fears by conjuring the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, while being indemnified by the U.S. for its self-styled “defensive” aggression in Gaza, where at least 50,000 Gazans have been killed and over a million Palestinians driven from their homes.
While the widely publicized intent of President Trump to bomb Iran imperils Iran and neighboring countries, it also makes Israel vulnerable to a massive counterstrike from Iran and puts in the bullseye all U.S. troops in the region within 2,500 miles of Iran.
The attack B-2 bombers headed to Iran are designed to carry nuclear “bunker busters” as well as conventional 500 lb gravity bombs. The objective is to take down Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which includes nuclear reactors and research labs. Nukes bombing nukes equals massive radioactive fallout.
“There will be Bombing.”
“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” Trump said in a telephone interview this past Sunday with NBC News. “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”
Civics lesson: Official threats against another state are a violation of the UN Charter, Article Two, Section 4, which “prohibits the threat or use of force against …. any state.” Both Iran and the US signed and ratified that agreement nearly 80 years ago, in recognition of its organizing principle: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”.
It is a war crime to aggress against another country. Under the US Constitution, no president has the right to unilaterally take our nation to war, absent an imminent threat to the United States. The Constitutional Convention placed the war power in the hands of Congress. This was in contrast to the British Crown’s expansion of war for empire.
The litany of reasons not to attack Iran is eerily similar to the reasons America should not have attacked Iraq: Iran is not a threat to the United States. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran does not have the intention or the ability to attack the United States. That being the case, the opportunities for a false flag incitement are ripe.
Significantly, last week the U.S. Intelligence community, in its annual Global Threat Assessment, refuted Netanyahu’s oft-repeated claim about Iran building a nuclear weapon:
“We continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003”.
In the 16 years I spent in Congress, I was often one of the only members who rose to question the Bush Administration’s plans to attack Iran, time and again calling out the dangers of attacking nuclear research facilities and calling for diplomatic means to block Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.
The agreement, arrived on July 14, 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plain of Action (JCPOA). It took the U.S. China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK thirteen years to craft a workable agreement which limited Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade. The agreement was a landmark for international cooperation. It put the spectral genie of Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon back in the bottle.
That did not satisfy Netanyahu, however. He longed for the toppling of the Iran regime, and continued to hype existential fears among Israelis. Trump cancelled the JCPOA, at Netanyahu’s behest, setting in motion a series of events which may lead the US to attack Iran soon.
From Deal Breaker to Deal Maker?
Scott Ritter a former UN Weapons Inspector and Marine intelligence specialist provides a detailed account of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, in his book, entitled Deal Breaker.
The JCPOA which Trump took down had blocked Iran’s production of enriched uranium (processed to increase the percentage of uranium-235 (235U) at the Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities.
It blocked Iran’s development of weapons-grade plutonium and frustrated even covert attempts to produce fissile (capable of undergoing nuclear fission) materials used for nuclear weapons.
The President now is demanding Iran sign a new deal. He wants Iran to get rid of the weapon-making capability which he errantly enabled by cancelling the JCPOA.
Eight years after the cancellation of the JCPOA, President Trump is apparently demanding Iran voluntarily take down its nuclear infrastructure which provides nuclear power, nuclear research and yes, with no JCPOA, can, at this moment, enrich uranium to near–weapons grade.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has issued a fatwa (a religious ruling) against the use of nuclear weapons.
The new deal which the President is seeking, at best, could end up looking a lot like the JCPOA, and, at worst, puts him in the position of issuing a non-negotiable demand for Iran to voluntarily take down its nuclear infrastructure, or the US will do it militarily.
Iran has rejected direct negotiations with Washington under such circumstances. It has, however, maintained indirect communication with the U.S. through Oman as the President escalates the threat of a massive bombing attack.
B-2 bombers are in place, equipped with the most powerful weapons in America’s arsenal ready to be activated from Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, 2,400 miles southeast of Iran. The B-2 has the capacity to attack and return to Diego Garcia without refueling.
In someways this showdown with Iran was set in place on July 25, 2024, when Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress. In a spell-binding speech for which he received over 50 standing ovations, Netanyahu skillfully aligned Israel’s and the U.S. policy on Iran:
“If you remember one thing, one thing from this speech, remember this: Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory,” Mr. Netanyahu declared.
At this point, the measure of consequence needs to be assessed. The only difference between war games, preparing for war and actual war, is in the intent.
Israel intends to destroy Iran and needs the US to do it.
Joint US-Israeli Air Force war games have been held recently in preparation for an attack.
The U.S. has nineteen B-2 bombers. Each cost over $2 billion. Their unique flying wing design, with the plane wrapped in radar-absorbing materials help it avoid detection. The B-2s use sophisticated electronic countermeasures to jam or stymie opposition radar and missiles.
Iran is ill-equipped to defend against the B-2 bombers’ stealth warfare. At best the shortened detection range will limit Iran’s ability to lock onto the B-2 with surface-to-air missiles.
Each B-2 can carry sixteen, 2,400 lb., B83 thermo-nuclear gravity bombs, also known as nuclear bunker busters, which explode deep inside the earth. Each B83 bomb has the explosive capacity of 80 Hiroshimas which means each B-2 bomber is capable of delivering the destructive power of 1280 Hiroshimas.
Once the B83’s detonate they destroy underground structures and send shockwaves through rock. Earthquakes and massive ground displacement result, with radioactive debris being flung into the atmosphere.
There is a metaphysics at work here of bringing to oneself that which one fears. The United States is preparing to attack Iran because of Israel’s fear of Iran.
Trump: “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”
The U.S. will first attack Iran’s underground missile cities at Khorramabad, and Panj Pellah, Bakhtaran, with nuclear bunker busters or Massive Ordnance Penetrators aimed at underground missile sites, to incapacitate Iran’s ability to retaliate.
The use of nuclear bunker busters will send nuclear debris into the immediate atmosphere, and it will be carried aloft by the wind.
Simultaneously, the U.S. will strike at the Fordow enrichment plant, buried deep in a mountain. A combination of 30,000 lb. Massive Ordnance Penetrators (GBU-57s) capable of burrowing 200 ft into the earth before exploding, and nuclear bunker busters, will be deployed, creating a multiplier factor in blast physics, collapsing tunnels and sending radioactive materials into the atmosphere and far beyond. Fordow is heavily fortified and may be able to withstand the initial attack.
The Natanz underground facility will be similarly struck, with radioactive matter breaking into the atmosphere.
The ground-level Bushehr Nuclear Power plant will be destroyed, its reactor vessel breached, the reactor core will meltdown, massive release of radioactive materials (cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, and plutonium) will go into the atmosphere, and, depending upon the wind, and the weather, radioactive plumes will drift over other countries.
Countless civilians will perish from radiation poisoning and severe burns. Birth defects will be present for generations to come. Nuclear explosion refugees will be created. Chernobyl-type effects will require people to leave their homes, never to return.
Tehran’s Research Reactor, Isfahan Nuclear Tech Center, Arak Heavy Water Reactor, Natanz Surface Facility and the Parchine Military Complex are ground level and surface level structures which will be targeted and destroyed, either by nuclear weapons or so-called conventional weapons.
Iran Can Still Hit Back
Iran’s underground missile system is widely distributed. Faced with imminent destruction, Iran, at the first sign of an attack, will simultaneously launch multiple rockets from many underground sites, a “shower of missiles” numbering in the thousands.
These deadly projectiles can change trajectories and targets while in flight, making the vaunted missile defense of Israel less effective. While Israel’s 2000 lb. bombs, the type dropped on Gaza, are more precise, the Shabab-3 has the potential of inflicting much more significant damage over a larger radius of Israeli cities.
U.S. Troops in Region will Pay
Tens of thousands of US troops, Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Space Force are stationed within reach of Iranian missiles. They are under no threat unless Iran is attacked.
Iran’s short-range missiles, Fateh-110 and Zolfagher, can reach Saudi Arabia. Iran’s medium-range ballistic missiles, the Shabab-3, Emad, Sejjil, and Ghadr can travel up to 1,550 miles (2,500 km), to Israel. Its intermediate range missiles are capable of striking 2,485 miles deep into eastern and central Europe,
It is not in the interests of the United States to attack Iran.
The United States is risking becoming the most hated nation on earth, using nuclear weapons again, bombing nuclear facilities, creating radioactive consequences for potentially dozens of nations and tens of millions of people born and unborn.
America has been Netanyahu’s pawn for decades. Will the wealth, lives and security of our nation be sacrificed yet further to an agenda which brings only debt to our nation and death to innocents abroad?
During his campaign, President Trump stated repeatedly that he aimed to have a strong military to avoid war. Military strength must be matched by diplomatic strength. He must come up with a deal that avoids a U.S. war with Iran, without a foreign leader’s self-interested meddling. “Very bad things” do not have to happen if good people prevail. If America nukes Iran, our nation will never escape the fallout.
Featured Video
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
- Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
- New US shipment of 6,500 tons of military aid arrives in Israel
- Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator
- Zelensky’s favorite drone company at center of Ukrainian corruption alert
- The Broken Contract
- US CENTCOM’s Request for Dark Eagle Missiles Shows Shortage of Weapons and Limited Options
- Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
- A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
- US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes
- If Americans Knew
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- Amid ceasefire violations and genocide, Israel commits piracy – Daily Update
- Five Laws and Standards That Require the US Cut Off Weapons to Israel
- Israel’s diabolical killing machine and how it targets journalists.
- The Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza — A cry at sea to the world’s dormant conscience
- Politico’s powerful parent company tells Politico they must support Israeli narrative
- 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 