Tag: perpetual war

Angry Pentagon Sources Leak Report Of Israel’s ‘Unhinged’ Spying On US Officials

It’s no secret that Israeli spying and surveillance is pervasive, and it is often even directed at its most powerful ally and backer, the United States. But the phenomenon has escalated of late, outraging Washington intelligence officials.

Behind the scenes of this alliance which mainstream media and pundits typically project as essentially untouchable, deep-seated friction is boiling over. In an unprecedented move, the Pentagon has officially elevated Israel’s counterintelligence threat level to its highest possible category, driven by surging internal alarm that this primary Mideast regional ally is aggressively ramping up espionage operations targeting senior US officials – even Trump’s own top Iran negotiator.

The intelligence warning, freshly reported this weekend by NBC News and The New York Times, highlights a profound rift within the national security apparatus as tensions mount between the Trump administration and Israel over the ongoing joint war on Iran.

The revelation’s timing is interesting, given it comes after Axios reported at the start of this month that on a phone call President Trump ‘steamrolled’ Prime Minister Netanyahu. Trump is said to have been “pissed” and at one point yelled and berated Netanyahu, saying “What the fuck are you doing?”

And now, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is broadcasting an internal alert raising Israel’s specific threat designation to “critical”. According to details revealed in a Sunday NBC report:

The designation stems from concerns within the Pentagon that Israel is making a particular effort to surveil top U.S. officials to get information on the Trump administration’s internal deliberations and decision-making on the conflicts in the Middle East, the officials said.

The DIA assessment includes a seven-page document and features a chart, according to one of the current U.S. officials. The document says the assessment of Israel is that its ability to conduct human espionage and technical collection is at a “critical level,” according to the official.

And parallel to this, a report by the NY Times lists out names that are very high level within the Trump administration. Israel has allegedly focused its electronic and human efforts to eavesdrop on the following officials (likely among others):

  • Steve Witkoff, Trump’s premier regional negotiator.
  • Elbridge A. Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy official.
  • Michael P. DiMino IV, one of Colby’s primary deputies.

The Israeli embassy in Washingtons has slammed the reports as ‘completely false’: “This entire story is false and sourced to someone who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on,” it said in a statement.

Keep reading

All Roads Lead Back to Reagan: The Reagan Era Policies Still Haunting America Decades Later

Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, passed away 22 years ago on June 5th, 2004, at 93 years of age. When it comes to Reagan’s legacy in the political establishment, he is lauded as perhaps one of the best presidents in American history. Upon his death much of the nation was brought to a veritable standstill, as his funeral acted as an unofficial national day of mourning.

As Reagan’s casket was brought out of the Capitol rotunda, cannons fired in his honor, the reading of his funeral rites broadcast in New York’s Times Square as well as on televisions around the world. Over 100,000 people attended his funeral to pay their respects, including multiple former presidents, government officials, and diplomats from around the world. In a CBS News broadcast the day of his death, Reagan’s personal biographer Edmund Morris described him as “looking and acting presidential, a man with dignity”.

Morris describes Reagan’s “largest mission in life” as “the moral leadership of the United States”. In Morris’s words Reagan saw himself as a savior sent to tame the government and get it off the backs of the American people. But beyond the aggrandizement and grandstanding, when one takes a more critical look at the legacy left behind, what is revealed is a much darker history than American political revisionists like to admit. One fraught with systemic corruption and the exploitation of the American people.

In this article, we will take a look at Ronald Reagan’s true legacy, and while not exhaustive, highlight several policy decisions that still impact the lives of American citizens today.

Naturally, we shall start with foreign policy, as it is arguably the most impactful and extensive. In this area Reagan is typically hailed as a hero more than most in the annals of American exceptionalist revisionist history. He started off his presidency in January of 1981 being credited with bringing an end to the Iran hostage crisis, as Iran would agree to release 52 Americans after 444 days in captivity shortly after Reagan was sworn into office.

This immediately did wonders for Reagan’s image as a diplomatic tough guy that Americans could look up to. But the reality is much more sinister. Acclaimed investigative journalist and founder of Consortium News Robert Parry (1948 – 2018) spent decades amassing evidence ignored by the DC political beltway proving that, in truth, members of the Reagan campaign, particularly campaign manager and future CIA director William Casey, undertook efforts to sabotage attempts by the Carter administration to free the American hostages for political gain. Casey and others would covertly meet with Iranian officials in Madrid during the summer of 1980 and strike a secret deal insuring that Iran would agree to only release the hostages on the day of Reagan’s inauguration in exchange for arms shipments.

With this act of political subterfuge, Reagan’s presidency began with a borderline act of treason, treating American lives as bargaining chips.

Of course, this was only the beginning. As secret dealings with Iran would scandalize the entire Reagan presidency. The Iran Contra affair, beginning in 1985, would go on to leave a lasting and disastrous blight both inside and outside of the United States.

During the height of the Cold War, the staunchly anti-communist Reagan administration would go to any lengths no matter how deplorable to exert American imperialist dominance across the globe. When the leftist Sandinista government came to power in Nicaragua, the Reagan administration sought to oust them with a coup. When Congress denied funding for this operation, Reagan would once again turn to his pal William Casey, now director of the CIA, and their Iranian allies, as well as the cartel.

The CIA would begin making covert arms shipments to Iran via Israel, despite an embargo in place at the time, using the revenue to fund an insurgency by the Contras, a right wing militant terrorist group fighting to oust the Sandinista government. At the same time, the CIA would put itself in business with the Contras cartel allies in a plot to help bolster the Contras funding, a scandal later exposed by journalist Gary Webb whom revealed the CIA helped to facilitate cocaine trafficking into the United States, resulting in the disastrous crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s which unceremoniously claimed thousands of lives.

These undertakings initiated by Reagan have left lasting scars on American society and politics. In the decades since, Nicaragua has continued to be a prime target for imperialist regime change efforts, particularly following the 2006 election of Daniel Ortega which brought the Sandinistas back to power and lead to a series of coup attempts against his government by both the Bush jr and Obama administrations, as well as a deadly relaunching of Reagan-era destabilization efforts against Nicaragua as recently as 2023 under the Biden administration.

Keep reading

Who is Funding Fulani Militants Killing Christians in Nigeria?

The Fulani militant campaign is the deadliest source of violence against Christians in the world. Of 36,056 civilian killings across Nigeria between 2019 and 2024, 47 percent were directly linked to Fulani militias, according to the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa. In states where attacks occur, Christians were murdered at a rate 5.2 times higher than Muslims relative to population size, with three Christians killed for every Muslim. Fulani militants were responsible for 55 percent of recorded Christian deaths between 2019 and 2023, nearly seven times the number killed by Boko Haram and ISWAP combined.

Kidnapping is also a primary funding mechanism. ORFA documented 29,180 civilians abducted between 2019 and 2024, with individual raids regularly exceeding 100 victims, including 287 students seized in a single attack in Kuriga, Kaduna State in March 2024 and more than 300 taken from St. Mary’s Catholic School in November 2025, the largest school kidnapping on record.

Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics found that Nigerians paid $1.42 billion in ransoms from May 2023 to April 2024 alone. Those payments helped finance the next round of attacks while forcing Christian families to liquidate farmland and other assets to secure the release of relatives. Victims and community leaders report that after attacks drove Christians from their villages, Fulani groups often occupied the abandoned land, reinforcing claims that territorial expansion is a key objective of the violence.

The kidnapping-for-ransom economy that now partly sustains Fulani militant operations is a later development, not the original funding source. Three streams capitalized the campaign before kidnapping became viable: wealthy Fulani cattle owners, northern political and military patronage, and cross-border jihadist networks.

Since the 1980s, wealthy Fulani cattle owners have supplied fellow tribesmen with AK-47 assault rifles. Cattle profits are converted directly into weapons, while Christian communities surviving at a subsistence level often cannot afford firearms. Even when they can afford them, assault rifles are prohibited under Nigerian law, which is rigorously enforced against sedentary Christian farming communities while being largely ignored in the case of nomadic Fulani herders.

A 2025 peer-reviewed study by Texas Southern University researchers states directly that Fulani militants’ access to sophisticated weapons “is not surprising because they are financially supported by cattle owners through Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN),” the organization the study identifies as financing the transformation of fighters who once carried knives and bows into units deploying assault rifles and AK-47s.

MACBAN’s institutional reach extends to the highest levels of northern Nigeria’s Islamic establishment. Founded in 1979 with the support of the Sultan of Sokoto, the Emir of Zazzau, the Emir of Katsina, and the late Emir of Kano, the organization counts former President Buhari, the son of a Fulani chieftain and a retired army major general, as its life patron.

Keep reading

Israel Bombs Iranian Regime After Terrorist Strikes

Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, has been perpetually firing on Israelis, and an Arab terrorist murdered Master Sergeant (Res.) Haim Kalomiti and injured multiple others in a jihad attack Sunday in Tzur Natan, one of over a thousand attempted terror attacks on Israelis just since March. Then Hezbollah’s Tehran paymasters began bombarding Israel. There has never been a ceasefire. Both Hezbollah and Iran’s regime never stopped shooting at civilians, not for a single day.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) posted late on June 7, “The Israeli Air Force struck military targets belonging to the Iranian terror regime in western and central Iran a short while ago.”

Keep reading

Another War for Israel We Should Never Have Gotten Into

In his highly-regarded podcast, Judging Freedom, on June 1, Judge Napolitano asked British diplomat Alastair Crooke if the Israelis really cared if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed and the U.S. economy, and by extension the world economy, suffered.

Crooke replied that the billionaires who support Israel so strongly have so much wealth that many would regard a recession or even a depression as an “opportunity” to buy farmland and other assets.

People of great wealth are not really affected by the higher gas and food prices and other inflation brought on by the U.S./Israeli war against Iran. But everyone else is, and this war, unpopular even at the start, is becoming less popular every day.

This is in sharp contrast with the Iraq war, which was very popular at the start but very unpopular three or four years later.

Even at the start, most polls showed 65 to 70% were against the war in Iran. And I believe that most who did not poll in opposition were really not in favor of the war, but just did not want to oppose the President on this.

Many leading conservatives, such as Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Rand Paul, and many others, have come out against this war. Conservatives under 50 have polled heavily against it.

Megan Kelly said on the Piers Morgan Show that this was “clearly Israel’s war,” that it  “needed to end ugly, or any other way,” and that she favored an end even if it looked like a “surrender on our part.” She added: “It was folly to begin with. It was folly throughout. It remains folly.”

Tucker Carlson said in an interview with the BBC: “The single biggest mistake Trump, or any other American president, has made in my lifetime is going to war with Iran. We are only doing this at the behest and then the demand of Israel.”

I pointed out in several columns that almost every member of Congress would have been rushing to condemn the killing, starving, and maiming of little children that went on in Gaza if it had been done by any other Country than Israel. And the exact same thing can be said about the war in Iran.

The great majority of the American people are sick and tired of foreign wars and know that we have a mind-boggling $ 39 trillion in national debt. They want our elected officials to start putting America First, and they know this war is putting Israel First.

We have bought and paid for Congress when it comes to anything Netanyahu and Israeli warmongers want. Because of campaign contributions for members of Congress, or fear of contributions against them, from supporters of Israel, members are like the three wise monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

The late Charley Reese was once voted as the most popular columnist in a poll by many thousands of C-Span viewers. He wrote many times that the terrorism against the U. S. was the  “direct result of our one-sided support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.”

In 2005, Reese wrote: “The big pushers for war with Iraq are the usual suspects-Americans with a long record of pretending to speak about America’s interests when in fact they are pushing an Israeli agenda.” Now put the word “Iran” where he wrote “Iraq.”

Almost everyone, if asked, will say they favor peace for the Middle East. But the United States cannot be a neutral peace broker there as long as we are so far under the thumb of the international war criminal Netanyahu.

Even the longtime Jewish New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, wrote in May last year that “This Israeli government is behaving in ways that threaten hard-core U.S. interests in the region. Netanyahu  is not our friend.”

Many years ago, David Halberstam wrote words about the Vietnam War that could and should be applied to the Middle East today: “I do not think we are winning in any true sense, nor do I see any signs we are about to win. That is why this is such a sad story to write.”

He added: “I do not think our Vietnamese can win their part of the war, nor do I think we can win it for them. I think we will finally end up lowering our sights, encouraging our Vietnamese to talk to their Vietnamese, hoping somehow they can settle what we cannot.”

No matter how many bombs we drop or how many billions we spend, there will never be peace in the Middle East unless and until we get out of the way and force the people there to talk to each other and work things out themselves. We cannot do it for them.

Keep reading

Kiev Regime and EU Globalists Scheming To Send Ukrainian Refugees Back Home to the Meatgrinder

Europe cares so much about Ukrainians, that it will send them back to die in the war.

Among the millions and millions of ‘asylum seekers’ that turn out to be mere ‘economic migrants’, there is a subset of people who are actually refugees feeling the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2: the Ukrainians.

But now, Kiev and the Euro-Globalist establishment are plotting to send the military age men back to Ukraine to face the meatgrinder against Russian forces.

On Thursday (4), Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell forcefully expressed this view, saying that there is ‘strong support’ among EU countries to ‘exclude men who could be called up to the military’ from Europe’s temporary protection scheme.

Politico reported:

“The temporary status scheme — under which more than 4 million people who fled Ukraine have been given the right to work, live and study in European countries — will expire in March 2027. The directive has already been extended several times and preparations to prolong it once more are underway. A proposal to exclude men aged 23 to 60, who may be conscripted, from the scheme is being discussed.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of EU home affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Thursday, Forssell said the ministers had been ‘more or less unanimous’ in favoring an extension of temporary protection.”

Keep reading

Trump says he never promised ‘no new wars’

Amid ongoing scrutiny over the U.S. war with Iran, President Donald Trump on Sunday defended his foreign policy stance — and denied that he ever campaigned on the promise of “no new wars.”

In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he built a “tremendous military.”

“First of all, I didn’t guarantee no war. Why would I have built the strongest military in the world?” Trump said. “I built our military. I inherited a terrible military. We had no equipment. We had nothing. I built a tremendous military. When you say I promised, I didn’t promise anything.”

Trump said he doesn’t like “endless wars” but added that the current conflict with Iran “is not an endless war,” asserting that the Vietnam War lasted for 19 years “because of stupid people.”

“We’re there for a few months and the threat is largely over,” Trump said. “Soon, it will be over. But you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, or they will blow you up. There will be no Kristen. There will be no NBC. There will be no ‘Meet the Press.’”

Throughout his campaigns for president, Trump has repeatedly criticized the U.S.’s involvement in lengthy military action in Middle Eastern countries, including lambasting former President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq during a 2016 GOP debate.

While campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2024, Trump told rallygoers: “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.” He reiterated the promise in his 2024 victory speech, stating at the time: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

And Trump’s official White House biography also states that one of the president’s top priorities is “putting a stop to endless wars.”

Trump on Sunday denied that the U.S. is at war with Iran, telling Welker he does not “consider” the current situation a war.

Keep reading

The Praxian Genocidal Kill Chain — Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed how a group of Silicon Valley oligarchs, the self-professed “Praxians,” have seized control of the Trump administration and have aligned themselves with the “startup nation” of Israel. In my latest book, The Technocratic Dark State, I refer to the Praxians as NEONERDS, but we’ll continue to use their own moniker in this series of articles.

In Part 1, we also explored Praxian companies’ practical symbioses with Israeli SIGINT, especially Unit 8200. The evidence strongly indicates that the October 7th Hamas attack, which the Israeli Zionist Likud government cited as the justification for its genocidal destruction of Gaza, was a LIHOP false flag attack, in which an unknown number of Israelis were evidently killed—not by Hamas, but by their own military. That the attack proceeded unimpeded as it did was officially attributed primarily to SIGINT “failures.” Thus, the strong possibility exists that the Praxians participated in the extraordinary sequence of supposed SIGINT mistakes, oversights, and miscalculations that allegedly enabled Hamas to attack Southern Israel virtually unopposed.

The result of this LIHOP false flag attack was the deployment of the Praxians’ genocidal kill chains in Gaza. And now we have a larger Middle East conflagration. Not only have Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran, but the Israeli government, with Praxian kill chain assistance, is attempting to do to Lebanon what it has already done to Gaza. In Part 3, we shall see how the Praxians’ fingerprints are also observable in so-called intelligence “misjudgments” that led the US, for otherwise inexplicable reasons, to attack Iran.

Also discussed in Part 1 was how the Praxians have used their signature investment strategy—which they call “accelerationism”—to disrupt everything from markets to international relations by deploying “creative destruction” as their version of a “revolutionary tool.” Indeed, just as the Praxians’ accelerated “digital kill chain” is central to the devastation of Palestinian lives, so is it now featuring in a “new kind of war” in the Middle East.

Keep reading

Charles Lee: The Alternative “George Washington” You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

History repeatedly demonstrates the difficulties faced by large conventional powers confronting decentralized resistance movements. From the American Revolution to Vietnam and Afghanistan, weaker forces have often offset military inferiority through mobility, dispersion, decentralization, local support, and the avoidance of decisive engagements.

While George Washington and the American Patriots are often credited with defeating the British Empire through asymmetric warfare, Washington arrived at that strategy belatedly and embraced it only partially. His instinct was to fight as a state—with a professional army, centralized administration, and conventional military institutions.

Charles Lee, on the other hand, recognized much earlier that America’s greatest strengths lay in decentralized resistance, militia warfare, and making British occupation prohibitively expensive. The distinction mattered not only militarily but politically, as conventional warfare demanded many of the fiscal and administrative measures that accompanied the Revolution. In reality, Washington gradually moved toward a strategy of exhaustion, avoidance, and attrition, while Charles Lee had recognized from the beginning that America’s greatest military advantage lay in avoiding the sort of conventional contest Britain wanted to fight.

The Continental Congress had the option between both men—George Washington and Charles Lee. In Conceived in Liberty, Rothbard wrote regarding the choice between Washington and Lee, “What Congress decided to do about that army would determine what it would do about the entire Revolution.” These men had entirely different strategies as to how to fight the British and maintain independence. Obviously, Washington was chosen over Lee, however, this article seeks to explore the little-known alternative: What if Charles Lee and his strategy had been chosen instead?

At the outset, a word of caution is necessary. We always have to be careful with speculation from counterfactual history and not overstate unverifiable conclusions. There are limits on the conclusive power of available evidence and there were negatives of Lee’s strategy. Human decisions, unforeseen circumstances, and countless variables make definitive conclusions impossible. Moreover, Lee’s proposed approach was not without risks or drawbacks of its own.

We can, however, examine what did happen, the available evidence, appreciate Lee and the logic behind his proposed strategy, and recognize some of the drawbacks of Washington’s strategy. Such an exercise helps guard against historical determinism—the assumption that the course of events was inevitable—or that Washington’s state-centered approach to warfare was the only realistic option. The American Revolution could have been fought differently. Charles Lee believed it should have been, and his arguments deserve closer examination.

This key decision of the Continental Congress matters because the way a war is fought affects the outcomes. It is the contention of this article that the choice to fight like a state means either losing or winning like a state.

Keep reading

China Sends Angry Memos While Japan Builds Real Defense

China keeps sending diplomatic tantrums toward Japan, and Tokyo keeps moving.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government placed four Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel at NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine headquarters in Germany. The Ministry of Defense described the dispatch as a way to learn from Ukraine’s battlefield experience and deepen Japan-NATO cooperation.

Beijing heard all of that and reached for the complaint drawer again. Lin Jian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, accused Japan of working with NATO to stir up confrontation, as reported by Gateway Hispanic, and interfering in China’s internal affairs. 

Spokespersons from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including Lin Jian , have condemned these developments as:

  • “Colluding with NATO to interfere in China’s internal affairs.”
  • “Stoking regional tensions.”
  • “Promoting confrontation.”

Beijing argues that NATO is a North Atlantic regional organization and therefore has no legitimate reason to expand its presence into the Indo-Pacific region.

Chinese officials also maintain that Japan should “learn lessons from history” rather than pursue what they describe as remilitarization.

Tensions have been further aggravated by broader diplomatic disputes, particularly those related to Taiwan .

Japan’s move grew from an offer made in April by Gen. Nakatini, then Japan’s defense minister, to Mark Rutte, NATO secretary general. The cooperation now includes cyber defense, new technologies, military teamwork, maritime security, and support for Ukraine. From Reuters:

Japan’s Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi on Sunday rejected accusations of “new militarism” by Tokyo and criticised China for rapidly expanding its military with ‌little transparency, underscoring mounting tensions between the two countries.

China continues to increase its defence spending at a high level, Koizumi said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, adding: “China’s external approach and military activities are matters of serious concern for Japan and the international community at the same time.”

Rebutting criticism that Japan was embracing new militarism, he said: “Think about it. There’s a country that has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. Japan ⁠has neither of such weapons, and yet Japan is labelled ‘new militarism’?”

Koizumi said Japan’s record since World War Two “speaks for itself”, citing its adherence to international law and commitment to the United Nations Charter, alongside efforts to uphold a “free and open international order.”

None of that creates a NATO war guarantee for Asia, but it does show Japan has stopped pretending the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific worlds live in separate rooms.

Keep reading