Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

conflict

Western leadership’s detachment from reality is causing terror and death across the globe

Published

16 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The international crises caused by Western interference in Ukraine and Israel ‘foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU,’ retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor said.

With defeat looming in Ukraine, and the reckless provocations of Israel threatening a war which could involve Russia and the U.S., the question of the role played by terror in the policies of the “rules-based order” of the West has never been more urgent.

The Russians, with a presence on Israel’s borders, have been drawn into a de facto alliance with both China and Iran, following the failed attempt to destroy its economy by sanctioning it into isolation from the Western system.

Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy complex in Syria on April 1, considered to be a grave violation of international law, has been the latest attempt by Israel to provoke Iran into sparking a regional war. Reliable Western commentators such as retired U.S. Colonel Douglas MacGregor, British diplomat Alistair Crooke, former U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman, and many others, have indicated that this is designed to trigger direct U.S. military intervention in a war that Israel cannot possibly win on its own. They warn this would likely lead the United States into a war not only with Iran, but also with Russia. The danger of a nuclear war is clear and present.

What is worse, the nuclear doctrine of Israel, known as the Samson Option, states that in the event of an “existential threat” to Israel, it will launch nuclear weapons at regional – and even European – population centers, taking the world down with it in a deliberate attempt to start nuclear Armageddon. This is the closest ally of the United States, a regime of nuclear blackmail engaged in genocide.

READ: Blinken again vows to have Ukraine join NATO as globalist narrative unravels

A further desperate escalation was seen in the terrorist attack on the Crocus theatre in Moscow on March 22. Four gunmen, captured alive, shot and killed over 140 people before setting fire to the venue. Within one hour, Western sources disclaimed any Ukrainian involvement, saying that “ISIS-K,” an Islamic militant group, had said it was responsible.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confidently proclaimed that “[t]here is no indication at this time that Ukraine, or Ukrainians, were involved in the shooting,” despite hearing of the attack in Moscow only minutes before he gave his briefing at the White House on March 22. “I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine,” he said. 

Now the Russians are building a case which traces the planning of the attack through Ukraine to Western-backed proxies. This case has been derided in Western media, yet it is one whose central claim has a long pedigree. According to a 2019 report by the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, ISIS commanders and fighters have for years enjoyed safe haven in Ukraine, with the collusion of its government and security forces.

On November 21, 2019, Oliver Carroll wrote from Kiev. His piece for the Independent was titled “How Ukraine became the unlikely home for ISIS leaders escaping the Caliphate.” In it, he details how “hundreds” of ISIS fighters had made a new home in Ukraine, with the Ukrainian authorities seemingly unconcerned about their presence.

In 2013, Akhmad Chatayev was detained in Ukraine whilst in transit to Georgia. Chatayev, an ISIS commander, had “bomb instructions” and “photographs of dead bodies” on his phone. An alleged bribe saw him released against the advice of the Moscow office of Interpol, says Carroll, in a process overseen by then-Ukrainian Minister of the Interior, Yuriy Lutsenko.

Three years later, Chatayev would be suspected of coordinating the 2016 suicide bombing of Istanbul airport in Turkey.

Carroll’s article also treats the case of Cesar Tokhosashvili, known also as Al Bara Shishani. “Shishani” is the Arabic rendition of “Chechen” – the ethnic and Muslim group native to regions of Georgia and the Russian Federation.

This man was presumed killed in a 2016 air strike in Syria which killed his namesake and erstwhile leader, fellow Georgian Omar al-Shishani. In fact, he escaped to Ukraine and lived there for two years, despite being responsible for “public beheadings” and “directing terror operations abroad.

“According to the SBU [Ukrainian intelligence], Ukraine’s admittedly unreliable security agency, Al Bara Shishani even continued to coordinate ISIS terror operations from Kiev,” Carroll wrote.

In a recent interview with Judge Antony Napolitano, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor was asked whether “MI6, the CIA, Mossad” could be behind the terrorist attack in Moscow.

“Yes, we had a hand in it,” said MacGregor, adding that while there was no “concrete evidence” to support that claim, it was “unlikely the SBU did this without U.S./U.K. knowledge.”

MacGregor’s charge about the toleration and even use of ISIS operatives in Ukraine is far from groundless, and extends beyond a couple of documented cases.

In his Independent piece, Carrol cites Vera Mironova, a visiting Fellow at Harvard and a specialist in studying jihadi movements:

Mironova estimates ‘hundreds’ of former ISIS fighters have decamped to Ukraine.

This is not a mere question of quantity – but also of quality. The quality here being danger. ‘But it is not the numbers that should be of primary concern,’ she said. The cluster of terrorists in Ukraine were by their nature a ‘self-selecting’ elite.

Mironova continued,

This isn’t a random selection. The slower guys stop as soon as they get to Turkey. After all, it is a multiple-step operation to get to Ukraine. The ones who get there are the dangerous ones.

Carroll also quotes a Ukrainian investigative journalist, Katerina Sergatskova, who covered the story of Al Bara Shishani’s unexplained release by Ukrainian authorities.

“Sergatskova, who has almost single-handedly covered the subject in Ukrainian press over the past year, says authorities remain strangely relaxed about the issue.”

She said she was accused making the story up by the Ukrainian authorities: “Whenever I wrote on the subject, government officials have accused me of inventing the problem.”

Yet she appeared to be vindicated with the Chechen ISIS commander’s capture – in the “safehouse” of Ukraine’s capital.

But the arrest of one of Islamic State’s top commanders here in Kiev, right under our noses, would surely suggest many of the world’s most dangerous men do think of Ukraine as a safehouse. Corruption in all state bodies – the police, courts, prosecutors – opens doors to abuse.

Carroll notes that the Ukrainian intelligence service met his report with similar denials.

“When contacted by The Independent, the SBU rejected claims that Ukraine was in any way hospitable to international terrorism.”

Russia’s claim that there is a Ukrainian connection to the terror attacks at its Crocus theatre in Moscow is not without “proof,” as many Western media sources assert.

Most of them now rely on the SBU for their “intelligence” reports about the situation in Ukraine, which accounts for the disconnection from reality seen in Western reportage. In this picture, Putin has been dying for two years, and Russia is losing the war. A Ukrainian “victory” is inevitable. Why is this the case?

Because for our “globalist elites,” as Colonel MacGregor styles them, a Russian victory is as unthinkable as it is obvious. Defeat in Ukraine for the political class that has staked everything on winning means they are finished.

“These are the actions of a dying regime” said MacGregor to Napolitano in his April 3 interview.

MacGregor says the recent tactics of the U.S.-, U.K.-, and EU-backed Ukrainian regime, including the strike on a Russian oil refinery, betray a mounting desperation over a lost cause.

“I think the globalist elites running Europe are unwilling to admit the truth” he says.

“They’ve had it.”

He says the rulers of Britain and the EU have “committed suicide by rejecting cheap Russian energy” and face political wipeout in forthcoming elections.

“They’re going to persist in this fantasy [of a Russian defeat] because they have nowhere else to go.”

MacGregor’s assessment of the dire situation of U.S. and Western elites is compounded by the atrocities in Israel – as well as mounting troubles at home. It is a crisis so severe, he says, that it “foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU.”

Speaking of the so-called “war” in Gaza, he notes that in a war, “Normally we don’t annihilate the entire population on the ground” as Israel has been doing.

Even if you are indifferent to this fact, MacGregor says Netanyahu’s strategy of “eliminating Hamas” does not make sense.

“You can’t kill an idea,” he returns, before saying this strategy has been counterproductive. “What this campaign has done is elevate Hamas.”

Just as the project to destroy Russia on the battlefield and collapse it with sanctions has seen its military strength vastly magnified, and its economic prosperity secured by exclusion from the Western system, the strategy of the Israelis has empowered their enemies and perhaps fatally undermined their own security.

Now, says MacGregor, “The only solution is the final solution.” Speaking of the Israeli move to destroy Gaza and starve its population of over 2 million, he said, “Hatred has taken over.”

There are no limits to Israeli offensive operations, be they conducted against civilians, or the Iranians. Since Israel bombed Iran’s embassy complex in Syria on April 1, frantic measures have been reportedly underway to prevent a large-scale military retaliation against Israel.

As former British diplomat Alastair Crooke pointed out, “Even Nazi Germany respected embassies.” In another interview with Napolitano, he stressed the need to “deradicalize” the Israelis, saying that it was “Western [intelligence] services” which had “created ISIS” in the first place.

To bomb an embassy is to attack the sovereign territory of another nation. This is an act of terror for which Israel has, as yet, faced no consequences. With the U.S. continuing to arm Israel, it is noteworthy that the Israeli army has now almost completely withdrawn from Gaza.

This may be due to rumors of an Iranian demand made to the U.S. for an immediate ceasefire and to cancel the planned ground assault on Rafah by Israel. Talks are underway in the Egyptian capital of Cairo to agree a halt to Israel’s assaults.

Yet the Israelis maintain they are simply withdrawing to mount another attack on the Palestinians. Zionist extremist and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has vowed that, “If Netanyahu ends the war without the Rafah operation, he will lose his mandate.” The implication is that either the killing stops, or the leadership goes.

The regime, MacGregor points out, has become “a pariah” like Israel. He warns that “no one wants to serve in our military anymore,” and gravely mentions the likelihood of the U.S. resorting to the recruitment of illegal migrants to swell the ranks of an army whose wars are destroying the U.S. and the West.

The big picture is alarming. When you zoom in to the shady pixels, the devil emerges from the detail. As MacGregor says, we are ruled by an elite insulated from reality, and whose only interest lies in serving their own insane agenda, whatever the cost in human life.

“The globalists denounce isolationism – but they are the cause of our isolation,” he says.

The world has united in horror at the lengths to which this elite will go to preserve itself. MacGregor’s warning of the dangers at home are the domestic dimension of a campaign of death, degradation, and plunder which makes our current leadership the enemy of humanity and of life, wherever it is found.

To MacGregor, it is a case of us or them.

conflict

US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?

Published on

A satellite image of the Isfahan nuclear research center in Iran shows visible damage to structures and nearby tunnel entrances from recent US airstrikes. / Satellite image (c) 2025 Maxar Technologies.

Seymour Hersh Seymour Hersh

The US attack on Iran may not have wiped out its nuclear ambitions but it did set them back years

I started my career in journalism during the early 1960s as a reporter for the City News Bureau of Chicago, a now long-gone local news agency that was set up by the Chicago newspapers in the 1890s to cover the police and fire departments, City Hall, the courts, the morgue, and so on. It was a training ground, and the essential message for its aspiring reporters was: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

It was a message I wish our cable networks would take to heart. CNN and MSNBC, basing their reporting on an alleged Defense Intelligence Agency analysis, have consistently reported that the Air Force raids in Iran on June 22 did not accomplish their primary goal: total destruction of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity. US newspapers also joined in, but it was the two nominally liberal cable channels, with their dislike—make that contempt—for President Donald Trump, that drove the early coverage.

There was no DIA analysis per se. All US units that engage in combat must file an “after-action report” to the DIA after a military engagement. In this case, the report would have come from the US Central Command, located at MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, Florida. CENTCOM is responsible for all US military operations in the Middle East, Egypt, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. One US official involved in the process told me that “the first thing out of the box is you have to tell your boss what happened.” It was that initial report of the bombing attack that was forwarded to DIA headquarters along the Potomac River in Washington and copied or summarized by someone not authorized to do so and sent to the various media outlets.

The view of many who were involved in the planning and execution of the mission is that the report was summarized and leaked “for political purposes”—to cast immediate doubt on the success of the mission. The early reports went so far as to suggest that Iran’s nuclear program has survived incapacitation by the attack. Seven US B-2 “Spirit” bombers, each carrying two deep-penetration “bunker-busters” weighing 30,000 pounds, had flown without challenge from their base in Missouri to the primary target: Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, concealed deep inside a mountain twenty miles north of the city of Qom.

The planning for the attack began with the knowledge that the main target—the working area of the nuclear program—was buried at least 260 feet below the rocky surface at Fordo. The gas centrifuges spinning there were repeatedly enriching uranium, in what is known as a cascade, not to weapons-grade level—uranium-235 isotopes enriched to 90 percent—but to 60 percent. Further processing to create weapons grade uranium, if Iran chose to do so, could be done in a matter of weeks, or less. The Air Force planning group had also been informed before the bombing raid, most likely by the Israelis, who have a vast spy network in Iran, that more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas stored at Fordo had been shipped to safety at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan, 215 miles south of Tehran. Isfahan was the only known facility in Iran capable of converting the Fordo gas into a highly enriched metal—a critical early stage of building the bomb. Isfahan also was a separate target of the US attack on Fordo, and was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine operating in the Gulf of Aden, off Yemen.

As a journalist who for decades has covered the nascent nuclear crisis in the Middle East, it seemed clear to me and to informed friends I have in Washington and Israel that if Fordo somehow survived its bunker-buster attack, as was initially suggested, and continued to enrich more uranium, Isfahan would not. No enrichment, no Iranian bomb.

I’ve been frustrated and angry at cable news coverage for years, and that includes Fox News, too, and decided to try and find the real story. If your mother says she loves you, check it out. And I checked out enough of it to share.

I was told that “the first question for the American planners was how big was the actual workspace at Fordo? Was it a structure? We had to find that out before we got rid of it.” Some of the planners estimated that the working space “was the size of two hockey rinks: 200 feet long and 85 feet wide.” It came to 34,000 square feet. The height of the underground working space was assumed to be ten-and-a-half feet—I was not told the genesis of that assumption—and the size of the target was determined to be 357,000 cubic feet.

The next step was to measure the power of the dozen or more bunker-busters that were planned to be “carefully spaced and dropped” by the US B-2 bombers, using the most advanced guidance systems. (During one high-level session in Washington, one of the Air Force planners was asked what would happen if the B-2’s guidance systems were corrupted by an outside signal. “We’d miss the target” was the answer.)

I was assured that even if the rough estimate of the working space at Fordo was far off, the bombers targeting Fordo each carried a 30,000-pound bomb with an explosive payload of as much as five thousand pounds, which was more than enough to pulverize the mythical hockey rinks, or even a much larger working space.

Some of the bombs were also outfitted with what is known as a hard target void sensing fuze, which enabled the bombs to penetrate multiple layers of a site like Fordo before detonating. This would maximize the destructive effect. Each bomb, dropped in sequence, would create a force of rubble that would cause increasing havoc in the working areas deep inside the mountain.

“The bombs made their own hole. We built a 30,000-pound steel bullet,” the official told me, referring with pride to the bunker-busters.

Most important, he said, was that there were no post-strike hints detected of radioactivity—more evidence that the 450 pounds of enriched uranium had been moved from Fordo to the reprocessing site at Isfahan prior to the US attack there, which was code-named “Midnight Hammer.” That operation included a third US strike at yet another nuclear facility at Natanz.

“The Air Force got everything on the hit list,” the official told me. “Even if Iran rebuilds some centrifuges, it will still need Isfahan. There is no conversion capability without it.”

Why not, I asked, tell the public about the success of the raid and the fact that Iran no longer has a potential nuclear weapon?

The answer: “There will be a top-secret report about all of this, but we don’t tell people how hard we work. We tell the public what we think it wants to hear.”

The US official, asked about the future of the Iranian nuclear program, quickly acknowledged that “there is a communication problem” when it comes to the fate of the program.

The intent of the strike planners, he said, “was to prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon in the near term—a year or so—with the hope they would not try again. The clear understanding was that there was no expectation to ‘obliterate’ every aspect of their nuclear program. We don’t even know what that is.

“Obliteration means the glass—[eliminating] Iran’s nuclear program—is full. The planning and the results are the glass is half-full. For Trump critics, the results are the glass is half-empty—the centrifuges may have survived and four hundred pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium are missing. The bombs could not be assured to penetrate the centrifuge chamber . . . too deep, but they could cover them up [with rocks and other bomb debris] and in the process cause unknown damage to them.

“Whether the 60 percent [enriched uranium] was there or not is irrelevant because without centrifuges they cannot refine it to weapons grade. Add to this the research and refinement and conversion from gas to metal—required for a bomb—at Isfahan are also gone.

“Results? Glass is half-full . . . a couple of years of respite and uncertain future. So now Trump’s defense is Full Glass. Critics? Half-empty. Reality? Half-full. There you are.”

The immediate beneficiary of the use of US force in Iran will not be a more placid Middle East, but Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Air Force and army are still killing massive numbers of Palestinians in Gaza.

There remains no evidence that Iran was on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. But as the world has known for decades, Israel maintains a significant nuclear arsenal that it officially claims does not exist.

This is a story not about the bigger picture, which is muddled, but about a successful US mission that was the subject of a lot of sloppy reporting because of a reviled president. It would have been a breakthrough had anyone in the mainstream press spoken or written about the double standard that benefits Israel and its nuclear umbrella, but in America that remains a taboo.

Subscribe to Seymour Hersh.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

conflict

Obama Dropped Over 26K Bombs Without Congressional Approval

Published on

Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

@miss_stacey_

Biden, Clinton, Obama & Harris on Iran #biden #clinton #obama #harris #trump #iran #nuclear

♬ original sound – Stacey

Iran has been the target for decades. Biden, Harris, and Clinton—all the Democrats have said that they would attack Iran if given the opportunity. It appears that Donald Trump is attempting to mitigate a potentially irresolvable situation. As he bluntly told reporters: We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f‑‑‑ they’re doing.”

A portion of the nation believes Trump acted like a dictator by attacking Iran without Congressional approval. I explained how former President Barack Obama decimated the War Powers Resolution Act when he decided Libya was overdue for a regime change. The War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.

Libya is one of seven nations that Obama bombed without Congressional approval, yet no one remembers him as a wartime president, as the United States was not technically at war. Over 26,000 bombs were deployed across 7 nations under his command in 2016 alone. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan were attacked without a single vote. Donald Trump’s recent orders saw 36 bombs deployed in Iran.

The majority of those bombings happened in Syria, Libya, and Iraq under the premise of targeting extremist groups like ISIS. Drone strikes were carried out across Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan as the Obama Administration accused those nations of hosting al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Coincidentally, USAID was also providing funding to those groups.

Trump Obama Neocon War Bombs

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was initially implemented to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama broadened his interpretation of the AUMF and incorporated newly formed militant groups that were allegedly expanding across the entire Middle East. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes there were up to 1,100 civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Thousands of civilians died in Syria and Iraq but the death toll was never calculated. At least 100 innocent people died in the 2016 attacks in Afghanistan alone.

The government will always augment the law for their personal agenda. The War Powers Resolution was ignored and the AUMF was altered. Congress was, however, successful in preventing Obama from putting US troops on the ground and fighting a full-scale war. In 2013, Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria but was denied. Obama again attempted to deploy troops in 2015 but was denied. Congress has to redraft the AUMF to specifically prevent Obama from deploying troops in the Middle East. “The authorization… does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Obama attempted to redraft the AUMF on his own by insisting he would prohibit  “enduring offensive ground combat operations” or long-term deployment of troops. He was met with bipartisan disapproval as both sides believed he was attempting to drag the United States into another unnecessary war.

The United States should not be involved in any of these battles, but here we are. Those living in fear that Donald Trump is a dictator fail to recognize that past leadership had every intention of sending American men and women into battle unilaterally without a single vote cast.

Continue Reading

Trending

X