Blog

Who’s behind the mysterious ‘Iran-backed terror cell’ haunting Europe?

Claims that an Iran-backed group is carrying out attacks in European cities raise questions about why they’re not targeting countries directly involved in the US-Israeli war, and why they appear to communicate like Israelis.

Strangely, suspects arrested in the attacks have been released on bail.

A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of Ashab al-Yamin. Officially known as “Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI),” or the “Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right,” the group mysteriously appeared in early March, and, according to mainstream media, it’s taking the continent by storm.

But a closer look at the supposedly Iran-backed terror organization suggests that it does not exist in any concrete form, and may be a confection of Israeli intelligence.

Though the nebulous HAYI claimed credit for torching ambulances belonging to a Jewish community organization in London on March 23, two suspects in the attack have been released on bail, and are not charged with any terror-related crimes. What’s more, London Metropolitan Police have so far refused to release the men’s names, raising questions about their identities. Were they even Muslim? 

HAYI’s first public mention in the West came on March 9, when the previously non-existent organization released a video showing an explosive device detonating outside a synagogue in Liege, Belgium, alongside a statement taking credit for the attack. Within hours, the group had somehow been identified by the “SITE Intelligence Group,” an Israeli-led private intelligence firm founded in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to cash in on the newly-minted Global War on Terror.

The materials HAYI published were promptly circulated on social media by Joe Truzman, a self-described “Senior Research analyst examining Palestinian armed groups and Iranian proxy organizations” at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative DC-based think tank founded in 2001 with the stated goal of working to “enhance Israel’s image.” As The Grayzone reported, the Trump White House plagiarized its public justification for attacking Iran word-for-word from an FDD paper. 

Though Truzman declined to state where he’d found the materials, he wrote that “Telegram channels linked to the Axis of Resistance… widely disseminated the publications,” using a reference to a variety of resistance factions sympathetic to Iran and Palestine throughout the greater Middle East. The group he linked to, a popular Telegram channel called Sabereen News, made it clear they were reposting the video, which they said was the work of a group calling themselves “the companions.” 

Almost immediately, Truzman began asserting that these “companions” were all but guaranteed to be a Tehran-linked cutout. For starters, he told British media, “their logo with the wording is a sign of a classic Iranian front organization.” And Iran had already threatened to carry out just such a wave of attacks, Truzman claimed. After all, he wrote, “On March 8, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy-foreign minister, warned that if a European country joined the US and Israel in the current war against the Islamic Republic, it would be a ‘legitimate’ target ‘for Iranian retaliation.’”

Over the next two weeks, the shadowy group would go on to take credit for burning a vehicle in a Jewish neighborhood in Antwerp, arson at a synagogue in Rotterdam, explosions near a Jewish school and financial office building in Amsterdam, firebombing Jewish-dedicated ambulances in London, and an unspecified attack in Greece. 

So far, the only media outlet to have interviewed a member of HAYI is CBS News, which was recently purchased by David Ellison, the ultra-Zionist billionaire son of the largest individual donor to Israel’s military, Larry Ellison, who happens to be a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Bari Weiss, the editor-in-chief installed by Ellison at CBS, is a self-described “Zionist fanatic.”

Keep reading

Why Washington needs talks with Tehran more than it admits

In recent days, there has been a noticeable shift in US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding Iran. Less than a week ago, Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran, threatening strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure if it refused to unblock the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Trump has expressed openness to negotiations and even claims that some contact with the Iranian side has taken place. This rhetorical shift may not reflect a genuine diplomatic process but could be part of an information strategy. After it became clear that Tehran was unwilling to make concessions and was unresponsive to Trump’s coercive pressure, the US attempted to make it look like the Iranian side was the one suggesting talks.

Israeli news outlet Ynet claims that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has agreed to negotiate with the US. However, no credible evidence has surfaced to back this, raising questions about the sources of the information and its purpose. Given the current dynamics, these reports can be seen as propaganda aimed at crafting an image of Iran as vulnerable and eager for urgent dialogue with Washington. These interpretations might serve to reinforce the narrative of Tehran’s weakening position.

In Tehran, this is perceived as an attempt to influence global energy markets. Public signals from the US, particularly from Trump, affect oil and gas price dynamics, especially amid tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz – a critical artery for global hydrocarbon supplies. In this context, talk of negotiations can be viewed as a tool for stabilizing expectations and reducing market volatility.

Iranian society and elites remain skeptical about negotiations with the US. Based on past experiences, Iran believes that diplomatic agreements with Washington do not lead to long-term de-escalation and are often followed by increased pressure or an escalation of the conflict. In the current situation, Iran maintains that its position does not necessitate immediate negotiations. Furthermore, within the regional landscape, Iran possesses the capability for asymmetric influence, utilizing allied actors and indirect means of leverage.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Set to Hear Landmark Case That Could End Birthright Citizenship Loophole and Cripple Anchor Baby Industry

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week in a constitutional showdown over President Donald Trump’s executive order that would end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens or parents on temporary visas.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, stems directly from Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which Trump signed on his first day back in office.

The order directs all federal agencies, including the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration, to stop issuing citizenship documents, such as passports and Social Security numbers, to any child born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or a green card holder.

Children born to parents who are here illegally, on temporary visas (such as student, work, or tourist visas), or otherwise not subject to full U.S. jurisdiction would no longer qualify for automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

The order explicitly interprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude those whose parents owe primary allegiance to a foreign country.

The Supreme Court granted review in December after multiple lower courts, including federal district judges and appeals courts, issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy.

All lower courts that have ruled so far have declared the executive order unconstitutional, citing the 1898 Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents who were legal residents at the time was a citizen.

Oral arguments are set for Tuesday, with a final decision expected by late June or early July.

If the Supreme Court upholds the order, it will represent a major shift in American immigration policy, effectively ending the “anchor baby” incentive that encourages illegal crossings and birth tourism.

Only a handful of countries, mostly in the Americas, grant automatic citizenship based solely on being born there. Most nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia determine citizenship by bloodline or require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident.

President Trump has repeatedly pointed out the national security and economic threats posed by the current system, pointing to “birth tourism” operations run out of China and other countries where pregnant women fly to the U.S. specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.

Those children later return home but retain the ability to sponsor family members for U.S. visas or even claim benefits as adults.

Kayleigh McEnany, former White House press secretary and current Fox News contributor, broke down the stakes in a recent segment.

“Next week, the Supreme Court is slated to revisit President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order,” McEnany stated. “It directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse issuing citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants or children who do not have at least one parent who is an American or a lawful permanent resident. It’s a law President Trump says is in place all over the world, and he’s right. You’re looking at that map. And if he wins in court, he would effectively cripple the booming birth tourism industry.”

Keep reading

Battle for Hungary: How the Russiagate blueprint has been unleashed against Orban

The shadow campaign to swing the Hungarian election against Viktor Orban has escalated with the wiretapping of Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. The case offers a rare look into how bureaucrats, journalists, and spies run a regime-change operation in real time.

Three weeks out from the April 12 elections, the political opposition to Orban scored what seemed to be a win over the weekend, when Politico and the Washington Post ran articles alleging that Szijjarto had phoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with “live reports on what had been discussed” at multiple EU meetings. The reports cited anonymous “European security officials.”

Neither Orban nor Szijjarto make any secret of their desire to maintain cordial relations with Moscow, particularly on matters of energy security and the peace process in Ukraine. However, when bundled with more outlandish claims – that Russian “election fixers” are already embedded in Budapest, for example – the reports paint a picture of a government compromised by the Kremlin.

Orban’s leading opponent, Peter Magyar, has repeated these claims in his speeches. After the Szijjarto story broke, he accused the foreign minister of “betraying Hungarian and European interests,” and threatened him with “life imprisonment” for treason, should his Tisza party win the election.

All it took was one leaked audio file for the scheme to unravel.

The Szijjarto wiretapping plot

In an audio file released by Hungarian conservative outlet Mandiner on Monday, opposition journalist Szabolcs Panyi can be heard telling a source how he passed Szijjarto’s phone number to “a state organ of an EU country.” Once they had this number, he explained, agents of this country were able to extract “information about who that number spoke to, and they see who is calling that number or who that number is calling.”

Keep reading

AWACS’ Destruction is a Major Loss for US Military – Ex-DoW Analyst

The destruction of a US E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft in Saudi Arabia by an Iranian missile strike is a serious blow to the US military, former US Department of War analyst Karen Kwiatkowski tells Sputnik.

The US has a limited number of E-3 aircraft, which are based on aging Boeing 707 airframes, and the next-generation replacement for E-3 is not yet available

The loss of even one of E-3s puts a strain on the remaining aircraft as they are forced to operate longer. It demoralizes the crew, stresses systems, and “increases the consumption rate of surveillance capability and information management”

Other E-3s now have to prioritize their own defense, which may reduce the radar, surveillance, and command effectiveness they supply

With many of the important US long-range radars in the region being knocked out by Iranian strikes, the strain put on E-3 aircraft will only get worse, with further losses among them threatening to “narrow and pressure the information space for theater commanders and US and Israeli forces”

Due to E-3’s distinctive and well-recognized function and appearance, Kwiatkowski adds, its destruction creates concern in the US because it doesn’t look like “winning,” and that claims of Iran losing its fighting capability were premature.

Keep reading

Iran: The test the US cannot afford to fail

The outcome of the war with Iran will determine America’s capabilities on the world stage for years to come. That is what makes the current conflict in West Asia so consequential, far beyond the region itself.

US policy toward Iran has become increasingly erratic. Rather than focus on the president’s shifting rhetoric, it is more useful to examine the logic underpinning the confrontation. Washington appears to have convinced itself that the moment is right to act decisively against Tehran, exploiting what it perceives as a window of vulnerability.

The objective, viewed in isolation, has a certain cold rationality. A single, well-executed strike could, in theory, achieve several long-standing goals at once: Settle the historical grievance of the 1979 embassy crisis, remove a regime seen as hostile to Israel, gain leverage over key energy resources and transport routes, and weaken emerging Eurasian integration projects. Advisers appear to have presented this as a rare opportunity. The president accepted the argument.

But such ambitions rest on a fundamental miscalculation. Iran is not Iraq in 2003, nor Afghanistan in 2001. Its military capabilities are far more substantial than those of any adversary the US has confronted directly in recent decades. It is a large, resilient state with deep strategic depth and a capacity to inflict serious disruption on global trade and energy flows.

This last point is critical. Iran’s geographic position gives it leverage that few countries possess. Even limited escalation can threaten shipping routes and economic stability far beyond the Middle East, directly affecting the interests of the US and its allies. That reality alone complicates any attempt at a quick, clean victory.

Keep reading

Scientists mimicking the Big Bang accidentally turn lead into gold

Medieval alchemists dreamed of transmuting lead into gold.

Today, we know that lead and gold are different elements, and no amount of chemistry can turn one into the other.

But our modern knowledge tells us the basic difference between an atom of lead and an atom of gold: the lead atom contains exactly three more protons. So can we create a gold atom by simply pulling three protons out of a lead atom?

As it turns out, we can. But it’s not easy.

While smashing lead atoms into each other at extremely high speeds in an effort to mimic the state of the universe just after the Big Bang, physicists working on the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland incidentally produced small amounts of gold.

Extremely small amounts, in fact: a total of some 29 trillionths of a gram.

How to steal a proton

Protons are found in the nucleus of an atom. How can they be pulled out?

Well, protons have an electric charge, which means an electric field can pull or push them around. Placing an atomic nucleus in an electric field could do it.

However, nuclei are held together by a very strong force with a very short range, imaginatively known as the strong nuclear force. This means an extremely powerful electric field is required to pull out protons – about a million times stronger than the electric fields that create lightning bolts in the atmosphere.

Keep reading

Utah Bans Polygraph Tests for Those Reporting Sexual Assault

For years, Utah allowed government officials to do something other states banned: ask a person who reports a sexual assault to take a polygraph test.

That will change soon. Earlier this month, state lawmakers passed a bill that prohibits police and other government officials from requesting polygraph tests for alleged sex assault victims. Gov. Spencer Cox signed it into law on Thursday, and it goes into effect in May. 

Experts say these tests are known to be especially unreliable with victims of sexual abuse. That’s because victims may have stress and anxiety recounting their assault that the polygraph may interpret as deception. Other states don’t allow them to be used with assault victims for this reason.

It took two years and three legislative sessions for Utah state Rep. Angela Romero, the House minority leader, to get the bill across the finish line. When she first sponsored it in 2024, she cited reporting from The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica as she told her fellow legislators the damaging effects polygraph tests can have on people who are reporting sexual abuse. 

In the case covered by the news outlets, state licensors asked a man to take a polygraph test after he reported that his therapist, Scott Owen, had touched him inappropriately. The test results indicated he was being deceptive, and that led the patient to drop his complaint. Owen was allowed to continue to practice for two more years, until others came forward with similar allegations. Owen is now in prison after admitting he sexually abused patients.

Romero said in a recent interview that she was determined to bring the bill back for that former patient.

“For me, it was really specifically for that one individual who was not believed,” Romero said, “and then their perpetrator went on to harm other people.”

Cox signed the legislation during a small ceremony at his office, telling Romero that she “has been such a champion, and made a difference and saved lives.” The governor also nodded to The Tribune and ProPublica’s reporting driving change.

Keep reading

FTC Warns PayPal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard Against Debanking

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters on Thursday to the CEOs of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard, warning them against debanking practices — including denying access to services due to a customer’s lawful business activities.

“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” the letters read. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”

As XBIZ reported last year, that executive order prohibits banks, savings associations, credit unions or other financial service providers from restricting access to accounts, loans or other services on the basis of a customer’s lawful business activities “that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.”

Following Trump’s executive order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a report on debanking, in which it named adult entertainment as one of several sectors facing discrimination for engaging in activities contrary to banks’ “values.”

Ferguson’s letters inform the targeted companies that deplatforming such customers, or denying them access to financial products or services, could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action.

Keep reading

NEVER FORGET: Ilhan Omar’s Father was Top Propaganda Official in Genocidal Somalian Barre Regime – Then He Changed His and Her Name and Entered US Illegally

On Friday J. D. Vance told Benny Johnson in their interview that radical leftist congresswoman Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud. Vance promised the White House will go after Ilhan for her crimes.

The Gateway Pundit has been reporting on Ilhan’s alleged immigration fraud since 2019.

Do Americans know the story on how Ilhan Omar made it into the United States?  In July 2019 we reported on Omar’s father Nur Said. 

Here is what we reported:
David Steinberg published an extensive report on the alleged crimes and history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and the “Omar” family.

In his report, David found that the Omar family changed their name in order to enter the United States.

Via PowerLineBlog:

In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Power Line also included this graphic on the Omar Elmi family.

Keep reading