Tag: perpetual war

China Is Smuggling Fentanyl to US Through Venezuela, Trump Says

U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed on Oct. 23 that China is smuggling fentanyl into the United States through Venezuela to bypass U.S. and Mexican controls.

“They are doing that, yes, but they are paying right now 20 percent tariff because of fentanyl,” Trump told reporters.

Trump said it is one of the issues he will bring up with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping at their bilateral meeting next week.

“The first question I’m going to be asking them about is fentanyl,” he said.

Trump said that with the tariffs on China, which will rise by an additional 100 percent on Nov. 1 if no deal is made, the fentanyl operation will no longer be sustainable for China.

“They make $100 million sell[ing] fentanyl into our country … they lose $100 billion with the 20 percent tariff. So it’s not a good business proposition,” Trump said. “They pay a very big penalty for doing that, and I don’t think they want to be doing it.”

Trump’s meeting with Xi will come at the tail end of his Asia tour, for which he is departing on Oct. 24.

Earlier this year, FBI Director Kash Patel told lawmakers he had spoken to counternarcotics authorities in China and urged them to restrict exports of more fentanyl precursor chemicals.

The Chinese Ministry of Public Security in August added seven chemicals to an export control list, three of them central to producing fentanyl. The restrictions went into effect Sept. 1.

The United States has determined that China is the main supplier of the deadly illicit drug in the United States, and Trump in an executive order on Feb. 1 imposed initial tariffs on China for its “central role” in the fentanyl crisis.

In the order, Trump noted that despite a long history of discussions over the years, Chinese regime officials “have failed to follow through with the decisive actions needed to stem the flow of precursor chemicals.”

According to the order, in addition to subsidizing and incentivizing chemical companies to create and export fentanyl precursors, the regime has also provided “support and safe haven” for transnational criminal organizations that launder the related profits.

“The CCP does not lack the capacity to severely blunt the global illicit opioid epidemic; it simply is unwilling to do so,” the order reads.

In recent weeks, Trump has authorized nine strikes on vessels suspected of trafficking drugs.

Keep reading

Western Media Use ‘Peace’ Prize to Fuel War Propaganda

The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan far-right leader María Corina Machado took nearly everyone by surprise (with the exception of insiders who apparently used advance knowledge to profit on betting markets—New York Times, 10/10/25).

The Nobel Committee justified the award on the basis of Machado’s “tireless work promoting democratic rights” and “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” However, Machado’s track record paints a very different picture (Sovereign Media, 10/11/25; Venezuelanalysis, 7/8/24).

Rather than scrutinize the opposition politician’s credentials, the media establishment seized the opportunity to whitewash the most unpeaceful elements in her background in order to advance its cynical pro–regime change agenda targeting Venezuela’s socialist government (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 1/11/23, 6/13/22, 4/15/20). Not coincidentally, Machado’s award coincided with an escalation of US military threats against Venezuela, meaning that corporate pundits used a “peace” prize as a platform for war propaganda.

The Nobel Prize meant corporate outlets had to give their readers an idea of Machado’s political trajectory. And though some had profile pieces (Reuters, 10/10/25; New York Times, 10/10/25), there was a concerted effort to conceal the most unsavory elements. The Financial Times (10/10/25) euphemistically stated that Machado “enter[ed] politics in opposition to Hugo Chávez”—president of Venezuela from 1999 through 2013—while the Guardian (10/10/25) summed up that she has been “involved in politics for more than two decades.”

Keep reading

Washington’s Deadly Lack of Foreign Policy Empathy Toward Russia

It is hard to believe that U.S. and other Western officials actually are surprised at the consequences of their habitually tone-deaf policies toward Russia.  Are they truly shocked that a major power, already humiliated by its defeat in the Cold War, resented having the most powerful military alliance in history steadily expand toward its borders?  One need only look at a current map and compare it to a map of Eastern Europe in 1990 at the time of Germany’s reunification to see the geographic extent of NATO’s expanded military power.  The encroachment on Russia’s core security zone is blatant.  Yet, U.S. leaders in five administrations ignored repeated, escalating admonitions and warnings from Moscow as those provocations took place.

The culmination – so far – of such policy arrogance and ineptitude is a dangerous proxy war between NATO and Russia, with NATO using Ukraine as its principal weapon.  Most worrisome of all, the proxy war is a conflict that could, given the slightest miscalculation by either side, escalate to the nuclear level.

Members of America’s foreign policy elite fail to exhibit even a modicum of strategic empathy, and that deficiency urgently needs to be corrected.  The principal global nightmare in the coming decades is likely to be a possible military collision between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  If the new generation of U.S. policymakers cannot do a far better job than the current crop has done with respect to policy toward Russia, a catastrophe becomes much more likely.

Aspiring and current U.S. policymakers should be compelled to conduct mental exercises in which they genuinely attempt to view a geostrategic issue from the perspective of an opponent or competitor of the United States.  As an important corollary, there needs to be a more serious effort to comprehend how the other party seems to view specific U.S. actions and initiatives.  Such an approach requires sincere, in-depth intellectual role reversals.

An attempt to achieve something at least resembling strategic empathy would, for example, try to determine how a defeated and humiliated United States would react to a victorious Russia expanding a powerful military alliance it controls ever closer to the American homeland.  Let’s say that the encroaching Russian great power started by adding small nations in the Caribbean and Central America as new alliance members and then moved on to admit larger countries possessing more significant military assets, such as Colombia and Venezuela.  Not content with implementing those provocations, Moscow then seeks to make Canada or Mexico a front line alliance member against the United States.

Substitute the Baltic republics for the small Caribbean or Central American countries, and substitute Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania for Colombia and Venezuela, and one has the mirror image of what the U.S. and NATO did in Eastern Europe between 1998 and 2004 with the initial stages of NATO’s expansion.  Throughout that period, Washington and other leading NATO powers kept insisting that the moves were not hostile measures directed against Russia – an assertion that had little credibility even during the early phases of expansion and ultimately had no credibility with Russian leaders.  When Anti-Russia hawks began to do their utmost to admit Ukraine to NATO during George W. Bush’s administration, the provocations reached an intolerable level.

Adding Ukraine as a NATO military asset, whether or not Kiev was granted formal membership, was the functional strategic equivalent of a victorious Russia trying to add Mexico or Canada to the looming military power already arrayed against Washington.  In this alternate universe, would anyone be surprised if the increasingly beleaguered United States took decisive steps to prevent Mexico or Canada from becoming a crucial Russian geostrategic asset?  Would we be surprised if U.S. leaders and the American people concluded that they faced an existential security threat and decided that decisive action to neutralize that threat must be taken, whatever the risk?  It is nearly certain that both the public and the government would reach such a conclusion.

Why, then, do U.S. leaders and their NATO allies profess to be surprised and outraged that Russian officials and the Russian people seem to view matters in a similar fashion about the threat their country faces?  The total lack of strategic empathy on the part of Western – especially U.S. – policymakers has produced a predictable, disastrous outcome.

Keep reading

Who Would Jesus Bomb? The Gospel According to the Military-Industrial Complex

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”—Thomas Jefferson

For a man supposedly intent on winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump spends an extraordinary amount of time waging war, threatening to wage war, and fantasizing about waging war.

Notwithstanding his dubious claims about having ended “seven un-endable wars,” Trump has continued to squander the American people’s resources and moral standing by feeding the military-industrial complex’s insatiable appetite for war—preemptively bombing nuclear facilities in Iran, blowing up fishing boats in the Caribbean, and flexing military muscle at every opportunity.

Even the Trump administration’s version of “peace through strength” is filtered through a prism of violence, intimidation and strongman tactics.

It is the gospel of power, not peace—a perversion of both Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the U.S. Constitution.

Thus we find ourselves at this peculiar crossroads: a president hailed by his followers as an “imperfect vessel” chosen by God to save the church and restore Christianity—while they turn a blind eye to his record of adultery, deceit, greed, cruelty, and an almost religious devotion to vengeance and violence.

If anything captures Trump’s worldview, it is the AI-generated video he shared on social media: a grotesque fantasy of himself wearing a golden crown, flying a military fighter jet, and bombing a crowd of protesters with brown liquid feces.

This is the man who claims to be “saving God”?

Dismissed by his devoted base as harmless humor—a cheeky response to the millions nationwide who took part in the “No Kings” protests on Oct. 18—Trump’s crude fantasy of assaulting critics with fecal bombs nevertheless begs the question: Who would Jesus bomb?

That question, of course, is meant less literally than morally.

To answer it, we must first understand who Jesus Christ was—the revered preacher, teacher, radical, prophet and son of God—born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of America’s own police state.

When he came of age, Jesus had powerful, profound things to say, about justice, power and how we are to relate to one another. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “Love your enemies.”

A revolutionary in both spirit and action, Jesus not only died challenging the police state of his day—the Roman Empire—but left behind a blueprint for resisting tyranny that has guided countless reformers and freedom fighters ever since.

Far from the sanitized, domesticated figure presented in modern churches, Jesus was a radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn. He spoke truth to power, defied political and religious hierarchies, and exposed the hypocrisy of empire.

Keep reading

Trump Suggests US Strikes on Alleged Drug Shipments on ‘Land’ Are Coming Soon

President Trump on Wednesday suggested that US strikes on alleged drug shipments “on land” could be coming soon amid the US bombing campaign targeting boats in Latin America.

Trump has made similar comments before, and according to multiple media reports, the US is preparing to bomb Venezuela with the goal of ousting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and is using cracking down on drug trafficking as a pretext.

The president claimed to reporters at the White House that he had “legal authority” to launch the strikes, but Congress hasn’t authorized the bombing campaign, which the Constitution requires for launching a war. Trump said he may notify Congress of the plans to launch strikes on land targets, but didn’t say he would seek authorization.

“We will hit them very hard when they come in by land. And they haven’t experienced that yet, but now we’re totally prepared to do that. We’ll probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we’re doing when [they] come to the land,” the president said.

The president previously told Congress that he believes the US is now in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. Trump has framed the airstrikes as self-defense, pointing to the large numbers of drug overdoses in the US, but they are primarily caused by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, which don’t come from Venezuela, something Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been very critical of the campaign, has pointed out.

“There is no fentanyl made in Venezuela. Not just a little bit, there’s none being made. These are outboard boats that, in order for them to get to Miami, would have to stop and refuel 20 times,” Paul told British journalist Piers Morgan this week.

“It’s all likely going to Trinidad and Tobago. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about this. Number one is the broader principle of when can you kill people indiscriminately when there’s war. That’s why when we declare war is supposed to be done by Congress. It’s not supposed to be done willy nilly. When there’s war you just kill people in the war zone, there are rules of engagement,” Paul added.

Since September 2, the US has bombed at least seven boats in the Caribbean and one in the eastern Pacific near Colombia, extrajudicially executing 34 people at sea, according to numbers released by the Trump administration, without providing evidence to back up its claims about the targets. Sources told The Washington Post on Wednesday that any US airstrikes in Venezuela would likely first target alleged trafficker encampments or clandestine airstrips, but regime change remains the ultimate goal.

“There really is no turning back unless Maduro is essentially not in power,” a person familiar with the administration’s deliberations told the Post.

Keep reading

US military conducts ninth lethal strike on drug smuggling vessels in Eastern Pacific

Three narcoterrorists were killed in what is believed to be the ninth deadly attack on vessels attempting to smuggle illegal drugs into the U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the strike on social media Wednesday evening.

Hegseth’s post included a video that showed a small boat moving along the water. Several seconds into the video, the boat explodes and is seen floating motionless in flames.

The latest strike took place in the Eastern Pacific, marking the second strike against a vessel in the Eastern Pacific within a day. The previous seven took place in the Caribbean.

Keep reading

Ukraine, US finalizing deal for 25 Patriot systems, Zelensky says

Ukraine and the U.S. are finalizing a deal for Kyiv to secure 25 Patriot air defense systems, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Sunday, a push that would boost the Ukrainian military’s ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks. 

“The difficulty lies in the production queue — a line of countries that have signed relevant contracts. We will be receiving these 25 systems over the years, with different quantities each year,” Zelensky said during a meeting with reporters in Kyiv, according to multiple news outlets. 

The Patriot system, which includes launchers, missiles and radar, can cost around $1 billion, and is one of the rare weapons that can intercept Moscow’s ballistic missiles, a necessary component as Russia continues to hammer Ukraine with aerial attacks. 

Ukraine will not receive the systems all at once, as it will have to wait for other nations to get the defense system that is in high demand. 

Zelensky said on Monday that Ukraine is working with the U.S. to “ensure that Ukraine still can receive the necessary number of Patriot systems. This is not an easy task, but it is one of the security guarantees for Ukraine — and it will work in the long term.” 

The long-term arrangement comes days after Zelensky’s trip to Washington, where he met with President Trump. During their meeting, which was reportedly tense at times, the two leaders discussed ways to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While in the U.S., Zelensky met with top U.S. defense contractors, including Raytheon, which produces the Patriot systems. 

Keep reading

State Department Employee Arrested For Stealing Thousands of Pages of “Top Secret” Classified Documents Released to Home Confinement

As previously reported, State Department contractor stole thousands of pages of “TOP SECRET” classified documents and met with Beijing officials.

Ashley Tellis, an expert on India and South Asian affairs, removed the top secret documents from secure locations and met with Chinese officials.

The classified documents were located in Tellis’s Virginia home during a raid.

“On Sept. 25, he allegedly printed U.S. Air Force documents concerning military aircraft capabilities. Federal prosecutors allege that he met with Chinese government officials multiple times over the past several years,” Fox News reported.

Prosecutors said in September 2022 that Tellis brought a manila envelope with him when he met with Chinese officials in a Virginia restaurant.

Tellis has been in jail since October 11.

He was charged with one count of retaining national defense information.

Tellis’ attorneys insist their client did not disclose any classified information to a foreign government and claimed government investigators are interpreting his “routine professional duties” as something sinister.

“Regrettably, investigators appeared to interpret his routine professional duties, such as liaison work and international travel, as clandestine activity, reading something sinister into what were standard think-tank and scholarly foreign policy engagements,” Tellis’ attorneys wrote in a court filing, according to The Washington Post.

Newly sworn in US Attorney Lindsey Halligan charged Tellis.

Keep reading

US Defense Contractors Raise Forecasts After Zelensky Meeting

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with several US defense contractors this week, including Raytheon, GE, and Lockheed Martin. A few days later, major defense companies raised their full-year profit estimates significantly.

Spokespeople say that tariffs have no impact on demand for the defense industry. Naturally, Ukraine is seeking duty-free defense imports on defense products paid for by other countries.

Lockheed raised its profit forecast from $22.15–$22.35 per share, up from $21.70–$22.00. The revenue forecast increased to $74.25–$74.75 billion from the previous range of $73.75–$74.75 billion. CEO Jim Taiclet noted there is “unprecedented demand” for Lockheed’s F-35 fighters, CH-53K helicopters, and of course, the highly desired patriot missiles.

“We are investing aggressively in both new digital technologies and physical production capacity needed to meet the top defense priorities of the United States and its allies — and we are doing so in partnership with a number of leading technology partners, large and small,” Taiclet said in a statement.

“In Washington, I spoke with defense companies that produce Patriots and other weapons we need. The willingness to work with Ukraine is fully sufficient — Ukraine is trusted,” Zelensky said on Monday. “It is important that there be enough support for this at the political level in Washington.”

General Electric Aerospace (GE) increased revenue guidance from “mid-teens” to “high teens” in terms of percentage growth. Free cash flow is predicted to be $7.1 billion to $7.3 billion, which is around $1 billion higher than before the meeting with Zelensky. GE stock is already up over 80% YoY, with an 83% increase in deliveries of defense equipment.

Raytheon did not publicly comment on its specific EPS ranges but had a strong Q3. RTX adjusted its full-year earnings to $6.10 to $6.20 from $5.80 to $5.95 and also tacked on an additional ~$1 billion for its sales forecast.

Keep reading

UN records 71 settler attacks in one week across occupied West Bank

Israeli settlers carried out 71 attacks against Palestinians across the occupied West Bank between 7 and 13 October, according to a UN report published on 16 October.

The attacks, many of them armed, resulted in the death of one man and the injury of 99 others, as documented by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Most of the settler assaults hit farming areas just as the olive harvest began, affecting 27 Palestinian villages, with nearly half of all reported attacks tied to the harvest that started on 9 October.

In the town of Deir Jarir in east Ramallah, Israeli settlers and military forces jointly opened fire on residents after settlers attacked Palestinian vehicles with stones, resulting in a 26-year-old man being shot dead, and two others being injured. 

The assault followed months of settler expansion in the area, including a new outpost and road connecting an Israeli military base to the village’s western entrance.

Two days later, settlers armed with rifles and sticks raided the village of Atara, also in the Ramallah governorate, attacking residents and opening fire on Palestinian vehicles. 

Keep reading