Hidden History -- In The Making

THE DECEPTIVE NARRATIVE SUPPORTING A LONG WAR IN UKRAINE

Narratives Have Been Constructed To Support A Long War In Ukraine. For Example, The Narrative Of An “Unprovoked Invasion” Was Important To Criminalise Diplomacy.

As that premise suggests, negotiations would reward Russian military adventurism and embolden further Russian aggression. Meanwhile, NATO escalating the war creates costs that outweigh the benefits to Russia.

Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum is a key narrative that supports a long war. It is constantly referenced as a reason why Russia cannot be trusted to abide by a peace agreement, and why the war must keep going. The argument is that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees for its territorial integrity. Russia’s breach of this agreement suggests it cannot be trusted and that the only reliable security guarantees must come from NATO membership. Furthermore, the West must continue to send weapons to Ukraine to honor the security guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum.

In February 2022, a few days before the Russian invasion, Zelensky referred to the Budapest Memorandum: “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security.” The Budapest Memorandum was again used by Zelensky in October 2024 to support the argument that Ukraine must either have NATO or nukes: “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defence for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO”.

This article presents facts and arguments that challenge the false narrative of the Budapest Memorandum, which aims to delegitimise diplomacy. Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail “legitimising” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is a common tactic to smear and censor criticism against the narratives supporting a long war.

NO SECURITY GUARANTEES AND NO UKRAINIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS

In December 1994, the American regime, UK, and Russia met in the Hungarian capital and offered security commitments in three separate agreements with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. These three countries agreed to relinquish the nuclear weapons that had been left on their territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in return, the American regime, UK and Russia offered commitments to not undermine their security.

The Budapest Memorandum does not offer any security “guarantees”, rather it provides “assurances”. Former American Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, who was part of the American regime’s negotiation team in 1994, argues the American regime was explicit that “guarantees” should not be confused with “assurances”. Pifer also confirms this was understood by both the Ukrainians and the Russians:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”.

Ukraine also did not have any nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons in question were former Soviet nuclear weapons that were stationed in Ukraine, but under the control of Moscow. Kiev did not and could not operate or maintain these weapons, which is usually left out of the narrative. Furthermore, in the Minsk agreement of 1991, Ukraine had already committed itself to the “destruction of nuclear weapons” on its territory.

THE NOT-SO-SACRED MEMORANDUM

The Budapest Memorandum outlined key principles such as “to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind”, and to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. In a display of cherry-picking, NATO countries constantly ignore the first commitment but constantly refer to the second commitment.

The American regime claims its use of economic coercion and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty was in support of democracy and human rights as opposed to advancing its own interests. Thus, the American regime freed itself from its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum. Under the so-called rules-based international order, the American regime and its allies claim the prerogative to exempt themselves from international law, norms and agreements under the guise of supporting humanitarian law and liberal democratic norms.

When the American regime imposed sanctions on Belarus in 2013, Washington explicitly stated that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding and that American actions were exempted as the American regime was allegedly promoting human rights:

“Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously and do not believe any U.S. sanctions, whether imposed because of human rights or non-proliferation concerns, are inconsistent with our commitments to Belarus under the Memorandum or undermine them. Rather, sanctions are aimed at securing the human rights of Belarusians and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other illicit activities, not at gaining any advantage for the United States”.

The Western-backed coup in 2014 had been an even more blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president to pull the country into NATO’s orbit. The commitments under the Budapest Memorandum were cast aside as the West claimed to support a “democratic revolution”, despite being an unconstitutional coup that did not even enjoy majority support from the Ukrainians and only a small minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership.

International law imposes rules and mutual constraints that limit foreign policy flexibility, but in return deliver reciprocity and thus predictability. Once the West freed itself from mutual constraints in the Budapest Memorandum, Russia also abandoned it. American Ambassador Jack Matlock who participated in negotiating an end to the Cold War, questions the validity of the Budapest Memorandum after the coup in 2014. According to Matlock, the principle in international law of rebus sic stantibus means that agreements should be upheld “provided things remain the same”. Matlock argues that Russia “strictly observed its obligations in the Budapest Memorandum for 13 years” even as NATO expanded towards its borders, although the coup of 2014 created “a radically different international situation”. Matlock thus concludes that Russia was “entitled to ignore the earlier agreement”.

LEARNING THE RIGHT LESSONS

An honest assessment of why the Budapest Memorandum collapsed is important to assess how new agreements can be improved. NATO’s demand for hegemony in Europe and rejection of a common European security architecture inevitably led to the collapse of common agreements as the West would no longer accept the principle of mutual constraints and obligations. Liberal hegemony entailed that the West could exempt itself from international law and agreements, while Russia would still abide by them. The narrative of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, security guarantees, and ignoring the American and UK violation of the Budapest Memorandum serves the purpose of sowing distrust in any future security agreements with Russia. A mutually beneficial peace is possible if you first return to the truth.

NEVER FORGIVE THEM FOR THE LIES THEY TOLD YOU ABOUT GAZA AND NEVER FORGET THEM

Never Forget All The Monsters Who Tried To Gaslight You And Convince You That You Are Crazy And Hateful For Saying These Things Are Happening.

A joint investigation by The Guardian and +972 Magazine found that the IDF’s own records show that civilians make up at least 83 percent of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza. The report notes that the real number is likely significantly higher, since the number given doesn’t include the thousands upon thousands of dead civilians who are still unaccounted for in Gaza because they are trapped under the rubble, or those killed by indirect means such as starvation or disease.

The pro-Israel spin machine frantically tried to discredit this report as soon as it came out, but their arguments have been soundly debunked.

They claimed that Israel has a phenomenally low civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio, then Israel’s own data proved that civilians comprise the vast majority of those killed by the IDF.

They denied that Israel is starving Gaza, then the IPC came out with a report saying that Israel is starving Gaza.

They tried to claim that the skeletal children we’re seeing in Gaza looked that way because of pre-existing conditions, then the Israeli press published an extensive report showing that children with no pre-existing conditions are being starved.

They tried to deny that Israeli soldiers were massacring civilians at aid sites, then the Israeli soldiers themselves told the Israeli press that they were being ordered to massacre civilians at aid sites.

Never forget all the monsters who tried to gaslight you and convince you that you are crazy and hateful for saying these things are happening. Never, ever forgive them.

The IDF has admitted to uprooting thousands of olive trees in the West Bank on Thursday. The routine destruction of Palestinian olive trees is not the most shocking or evil thing that Israel does to the Palestinians, but it does speak to what its true intentions are in a unique way.

Similar to the way white people killed off all the bison to help eliminate the American Indians, killing olive trees deprives Palestinians of an important means of earning a living, and strikes at an important aspect of Palestinian identity and culture.

Olive trees can live for thousands of years; people with a strong attachment to the land treasure and protect them, while the Israelis who claim to be “indigenous” to the area are destroying them and replacing them with highly flammable foreign plants. You can tell who the actual indigenous population is by watching their behavior.

Right wingers are like “No no you don’t understand, Israel is protecting western civilization. If we don’t help Israel genocide the Palestinians and starve their children and burn their babies and bomb their hospitals and demolish their cities, one day we could wind up ruled by evil murderous savages.”

The way Zionists talk about Palestinian hatred of Jews you’d think the Palestinians immigrated to Israel from somewhere else in 1948 in order to attack Jewish people.

In 1937, Winston Churchill stated the following while arguing in favor of allowing Jews to settle in Palestine:

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here. They had not the right, nor had they the power.”

Churchill knew exactly what he was looking at in the Zionist agenda to colonize Palestine. There was no confusion whatsoever. It wasn’t until much later that history was revised through propaganda to spin this as something other than the western settler-colonialist project that it has always been.

Someone wrote a rant about religious Zionists:

“Someone like Mike Huckabee is never telling the truth or saying what he really thinks is going on when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, he’s just making whatever mouth noises he needs to make to help fulfill a Biblical prophecy and secure his eternal reward. Such people have no place in the conversation. They should be completely excluded from the debate, because they are not actually participating in it. They’re just lying and manipulating for reasons that have nothing to do with truth or morality.”

The very next day, Antiwar published an article titled “Mike Huckabee Claims Israeli Settlements in the Occupied West Bank Are Not Illegal Under International Law”.

Huckabee does not believe this obvious falsehood, he’s just saying whatever words he needs to say to help advance the agendas of his weird Christian cult. These freaks consider themselves so pious and righteous, but in reality they are some of the most conniving, unethical deceivers our world has ever seen.

At some point in the future they’re going to try to demand that we condemn whatever radicalized groups and militias wind up emerging as a result of the Gaza genocide.

That’s gonna be nice.

FOR REVEALING IRAN STRIKE INEFFECTIVENESS, TRUMP FIRED THE HEAD OF THE DIA

The Trump Administration Has Intensified Its Purge Of Military Leadership, Removing Officials Whose Intelligence Assessments Challenge The Official Narrative On Iran.

America’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed a senior general following an intelligence assessment on Iran’s nuclear program that reportedly angered President Donald Trump, according to two individuals familiar with the matter and a White House official.

Lt. Gen Jeffrey Kruse will no longer serve as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), sources confirmed. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly.

The dismissal follows the leak of a preliminary report that concluded American strikes had delayed Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, undercutting claims by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the facilities had been decimated.

Trump had declared the program “completely and fully obliterated,” rejecting the assessment outright.

HEGSETH DEFENDS STRIKE’S SUCCESS

At a June press conference after the strikes, Hegseth criticised media coverage of the leaked findings but did not provide concrete evidence of the facilities’ destruction.

“You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated – choose your word. This was an historically successful attack,” Hegseth asserted.

Kruse’s departure was first reported by the Washington Post. It reflects a broader trend of Trump dismissing officials whose analyses contradict his stance. Earlier in August, he dismissed the head of a federal agency after an underwhelming jobs report. His administration has also halted publication of climate change studies, vaccine access research, and gender identity data.

BACKGROUND ON THE AMERICAN AIRSTRIKES

In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump announced on June 22^nd that the United States carried out what he described as a “very successful attack” on three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Trump stated that a “full payload of bombs” was dropped on Fordow, the primary target, and confirmed that all Ameican aircraft involved in the operation have exited Iranian airspace and are “safely on their way home.”

“Congratulations to our great American Warriors,” Trump wrote, adding, “There is not another military in the world that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”

Shortly after, satellite imagery analyzed by the Institute for Science and International Security suggested Iran reinforced critical sections of its nuclear infrastructure ahead of recent American airstrikes. Images showed trucks dumping soil into tunnels at the Isfahan facility two days before the attacks, a measure likely aimed at limiting potential damage. Similar activity was noted at Fordow.

At the time, President Donald Trump claimed the strikes “obliterated” nuclear sites and caused “the biggest damage far below ground.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated there were no signs of radioactive contamination at Fordow, Natanz, or Isfahan.

WIDER SHAKE-UP ACROSS MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE RANKS

The firing of the DIA chief comes amid sweeping changes to the intelligence community and senior military leadership. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced cuts to its workforce and budget this week, while the Pentagon confirmed Air Force Chief Gen David Allvin would retire two years ahead of schedule.

Hegseth and Trump have recently opted to remove senior officers without offering detailed explanations.

Among those dismissed are Air Force General CQ Brown Jr., the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Navy’s top commander; the Air Force’s second-ranking officer; and senior legal officials from three service branches.

In April, Hegseth dismissed General Tim Haugh, then head of the National Security Agency, along with Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, a senior NATO official.

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY AND BERKELEY ARE CONSIDERED HOSTILE TO PRO-PALESTINIAN ACTIVISM

The California And Michigan Universities Join A List Of Almost 30 Campuses Deemed Hostile To Student Activism In Support Of Palestine.

The University of California, Berkeley (UC-Berkeley) and Wayne State University (WSU) on Monday both found themselves placed on the Council of American-Islamic Relations’ (Cair) list of campuses designated as hostile to pro-Palestinian speech.

Cair’s “hostile campuses” list is meant to serve as a “comprehensive resource” to guide people interested in promoting “supportive learning environments” and features names of institutions “of particular concern due to reported incidents, policies, and discriminatory practices targeting Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Jewish, and other individuals opposing occupation, apartheid, and genocide,” according to Cair’s website.

Cair designated UC Berkeley as a hostile campus due to “its ongoing suppression of Palestinian advocacy, surveillance of student protests, and failure to protect students and faculty from harassment and retaliation”.

Cair said in a press release that the university “escalated policing, expanded surveillance, and selectively enforced policies that chill protected expression and endanger students and faculty advocating for Palestinian rights”.

Research and advocacy specialist Dr. Maryam Hasan, who led Cair’s research, said she had made her assessment based on two campus incidents and on public information gathered from Title VI complaints, lawsuits, testimonials, news articles, publications, and letters.

“One incident involved a Palestinian law student who was grabbed and pushed by a UC Berkeley law faculty member. UC Berkeley opened an investigation, but nothing has happened so far,” Hasan said.

Another event that Hasan described involved a student who was singled out in class when the professor compared pro-Palestinian symbols on his clothes to those of the Confederate flag.

“Then the professor withdrew from teaching the course the next day. UC Berkeley took no action to support the student or hold the faculty member accountable. It sends a message that Palestinian identity does not matter.”

Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of communications, said in a statement that the university has an “unwavering commitment to free speech and to effectively confronting harassment and discrimination of every sort”.

“The campus is dedicated to supporting a community where all can thrive and feel a true sense of belonging without regard for their identities, origins, or beliefs. Berkeley’s leadership works closely with the members of the campus’s Advisory Committee on Muslim and Palestinian Student Life in order to understand and address those communities’ needs and interests,” the statement said.

During a press conference held by Cair’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter at UC Berkeley on Tuesday, speakers said that 1,000 University of California (UC) alumni agreed not to donate to the UC system until it stops systemic repression of pro-Palestinian speech.

UC Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in 1964, famously led by Mario Savio, where students protested against the university’s ban on political activities on campus, marking the first act of mass civil disobedience on a college campus. The movement laid the groundwork for successfully championing opposition to the Vietnam War.

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY MAKES THE GROWING LIST

Cair designated WSU, a public university located in the Detroit area of Michigan, as a hostile campus due to what it says is “its repeated repression of Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and allied students who oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza”. Detroit is home to one of the largest concentrations of Arab Americans and Muslims in America.

“Wayne State University has criminalised peaceful dissent and silenced the voices of its Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Jewish, and allied students who speak out against the Gaza genocide,” Hasan said.

Hasan said that several factors had influenced the decision to label WSU a hostile campus.

This included a civil rights complaint filed in April about harassment and racial and religious profiling of students; a petition posted by the WSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors about the right to free speech and peaceful protest; inconsistent policies at WSU; and WSU’s board of governors holding virtual board meetings to avoid input from pro-Palestinian voices.

‘Wayne State University has criminalised peaceful dissent and silenced the voices of its Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Jewish, and allied students’

– Dr Maryam Hasan, Cair

Matt Lockwood, associate vice president of university communications, said that the university was “deeply committed” to supporting freedom of speech, expression and worship.

“As an institution of higher learning, we also continue to uphold our obligation to foster civil discourse and ensure – in a content-neutral manner – that conduct on our campus does not violate the law, infringe upon the rights of others, contravene university policy or disrupt university operations.”

The two universities join a list of 26 other campuses designated as hostile by researchers at Cair.

Universities that make up that list include Ivy Leagues such as Harvard University, Columbia University and Cornell University, as well as other prestigious schools such as Stanford; University of California, Los Angeles; New York University; Emory University; and George Washington University.

Hasan said Cair does not “recommend” hostile campuses to students and advises them to make decisions based on thorough research.

“We are not recommending them,” she said. “We are asking students and parents to look into their campus and make a decision based on safety, policies that are welcoming and inviting to political speech, free speech and academic freedom”.

INSIDE THE CIA’s COVERT WAR TO TOPPLE THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT

For Over A Decade, The Western Narrative On The Syrian War Has Been Simple: A Peaceful Uprising Turned Into A Brutal Civil War Because Of Bashar Al-Assad’s Ruthless Crackdown On His Own People.

But in Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA’s Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government, the Libertarian Institute’s latest book, William Van Wagenen methodically dismantles this mainstream version of events, exposing it as a convenient fiction crafted to justify one of the most disastrous regime change wars of the modern era.

His central thesis is clear: the war in Syria was not an organic revolution but a deliberate effort by Washington, Israel, and their regional partners to weaken Iran by toppling Assad’s government. And when peaceful protests were hijacked by Islamist militants, instead of helping restore stability, the American regime and its allies deliberately prevented Assad from crushing the insurgency—even as it became dominated by al-Qaeda and ISIS-affiliated groups.

Now, years later, the result is a fractured Syria, ruled by jihadist warlords and occupied by foreign powers, with Israel consolidating its hold over strategic territory.

How and why did this disaster for Syria’s people come to pass? And why were the non-interventionists who called out Washington’s lies always right about the war and its likely outcome?

REGIME CHANGE: THE BLUEPRINT FOR SYRIA’S DESTRUCTION

Van Wagenen carefully documents how regime change in Syria had been a goal of Amerian foreign policy long before the Arab Spring. The Bush administration set the groundwork, but the Obama administration accelerated the effort, seeing it as a way to strike a blow against Iran without a direct war.

His research confirms that the American regime and its allies—including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey—actively supported and armed the so-called “moderate opposition,” despite overwhelming evidence that jihadists controlled the rebellion almost from the start.

Instead of letting the Assad government restore order, Western intelligence agencies funneled billions in arms, logistics, and training to extremist groups, ensuring the war would drag on.

The leaked 2012 email from Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton (which Van Wagenen references) makes this reality undeniable: “AQ [Al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.”

This stunning admission exposes the real nature of America’s policy in Syria: at the same time they fought them on the other side of the line in Iraq, Washington was directly supporting al-Qaeda-linked groups because they served its geopolitical interests.

A WAR HIJACKED BY JIHADISTS

One of the book’s most important contributions is its wholesale demolition of the “moderate rebel” myth. While establishment media outlets painted the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as a legitimate opposition force, Van Wagenen presents overwhelming evidence that the so-called moderates:

Were always outnumbered and outgunned by Islamist factions;
Frequently collaborated with or defected to al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra (later HTS);
Received direct support from the CIA despite ties to terror groups

By 2013, ISIS and al-Nusra dominated the battlefield, and yet the American regime still prevented Assad from crushing the insurgency. As Van Wagenen documents, Washington:

Pressured Jordan to allow jihadists free movement across its border;
Supplied weapons through covert programs like Operation Timber Sycamore;
Worked with Türkiye and Saudi Arabia to keep a steady flow of foreign fighters into Syria

This policy—arming the terrorists who had just a decade previously attacked the United States, and who were attacking American forces in Iraq at the same time—wasn’t just reckless, it was criminal.

ISRAEL’S ROLE: ENGINEERING CHAOS TO CONSOLIDATE POWER

Another key point in Van Wagenen’s book is that Israel was a major driver behind the push for Assad’s overthrow. While the establishment narrative claims Israel was just a passive observer, the book shows that Tel Aviv had a clear strategic interest in Syria’s disintegration.

Israel viewed Assad as Iran’s key ally and wanted him removed;
Israeli intelligence worked closely with Western planners to fuel the insurgency;
Once jihadists took over much of the country, Israel used this as justification for expanding its own territorial ambitions

Fast forward to today, and Van Wagenen’s prediction has come true: Syria is permanently fractured, and Israel has occupied key territories under the pretense that there is “no legitimate partner for peace.”

As Israeli officials have repeatedly argued, Syria is too unstable to negotiate with because groups like HTS (formerly al-Qaeda’s affiliate) control large parts of it. But this outcome was engineered by Israel and its allies, who spent years ensuring jihadists gained the upper hand over Assad’s forces. In effect, the war has allowed Israel to tighten its grip on occupied Golan and extend its influence into Syrian territory.

THE ROLE OF BUREAUCRATIC INTERESTS: WHY REGIME CHANGE ALWAYS WINS

One of the most compelling themes in Van Wagenen’s book is the way he implicitly ties the Syrian War to broader structural issues in American foreign policy—particularly Public Choice Theory and the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Public Choice Theory teaches us that politicians and government agencies act in their own self-interest, not necessarily in the interest of the public. A subset of this is the so-called “Iron Law of Bureaucracy,” which states that bureaucracies eventually prioritize their own growth and survival over their original mission. The CIA, State Department, and Pentagon all had institutional incentives to prolong the war, expand their budgets, and justify continued intervention, as Van Wagenen’s book shows.

This explains why, despite overwhelming evidence that arming jihadists would lead to disaster, the policy continued for years. The bureaucratic and political interests pushing for intervention simply had too much to gain from prolonging the war.

THE DEVASTATING HUMAN COST

While Van Wagenen’s book is primarily focused on the geopolitical machinations behind the war, he never loses sight of the human cost of Washington’s policies:

Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed;

Syria’s minority populations—Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Shiites—were slaughtered or driven into exile;
Millions became refugees, fueling instability across the region and in Europe

Rather than bringing “freedom” to Syria, American regime intervention ensured endless war, ethnic cleansing, and the rise of brutal jihadist warlords.

THE FINAL VERDICT: A DEVASTATING INDICTMENT OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA’s Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government is a deeply-researched, compelling, and devastating critique of Western intervention in Syria. Van Wagenen’s book should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand how Washington and its allies systematically engineered one of the most destructive conflicts of the 21st century. He methodically dismantles the legacy media’s lies, exposes the CIA’s reckless support for jihadists, and highlights Israel’s long-term strategic interest in Syria’s collapse.For those who still believe that the American regime’s intervention is a force for good in the world, this book is a wake-up call. Syria was not a “humanitarian” war. It was a calculated, brutal regime change operation that destroyed a nation for the sake of geopolitical gain. And, as Van Wagenen warns, despite the non-interventionists having always been right, it likely won’t be the last.

Washington must stop its meddling. This is a message particularly timely as Trump seems more and more inclined toward furthering the American regime’s involvement in the region.

ISRAEL ISN’T STOPPING IT’S GENOCIDE

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Said On Thursday That Israel’s Intention With Its Ongoing Genocidal Assault On The Civilian Population Of The Gaza Strip Is To Militarily Control The Entire Territory.

On Friday, Netanyahu’s security cabinet, against the recommendations of the Israeli military, which has already placed 86% of Gaza under a “militarized zone” or displacement orders, approved a plan to complete the takeover of northern Gaza by controlling Gaza City and forcibly evacuate tens of thousands of Palestinians remaining there.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff objected to the plan on the grounds it would endanger the lives of Israeli hostages and exhaust the military.

In an interview with Fox News, when asked whether Israel would take control of all of Gaza, Netanyahu answered, “We intend to.”

He went on to say that Israel did not aim to permanently control Gaza but instead to overthrow Hamas, which has been the governing authority there since 2006, and to replace it with some other government.

From the start, Netanyahu has opposed the idea of the Palestinian Authority (PA) governing the Gaza Strip.

For years prior to the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on October 7^th, 2023, Netanyahu maintained a policy of utilizing Hamas as a strategic ally to prevent any movement toward peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

After a Hamas-led government was democratically elected in 2006, Israel responded by imposing a siege to collectively punish the civilian population and colluded with the American government and Fatah, the party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, to overthrow the legitimate leadership.

That effort resulted in violent clashes leading ultimately to Fatah being expelled from Gaza and a divided Palestinian leadership, with Hamas continuing to rule there while the PA continues to rule in the West Bank under Abbas despite his legal term having ended in 2009.

The PA was established under the Oslo Accords to essentially serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing its occupation regime, which is one of the key reasons why Hamas fared so well politically in municipal and legislative elections.

Israel has been the occupying power in Gaza since June 1967, when it launched what Israelis call the “Six Day War” with a surprise attack on Egypt. During that war, Israel invaded and occupied the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jersualem.

A common refrain among apologists of Israel’s occupation regime is that it withdrew from Gaza in 2005. However, while it’s true that Israel withdrew military forces and dismantled illegally constructed Jewish settlements, Israel has remained the occupying power in Gaza by virtue of its control over its borders, territorial waters, and airspace, in addition to continued administrative management.

The unit within the Israeli Ministry of Defense responsible for implementing the Israeli government’s civilian policies within the Occupied Palestinian Territories is known as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, or COGAT.

While Netanyahu denied any intention to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza, effective annexation is precisely what members of his governing coalition have been aiming at from the start.

After the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on October 7^th, 2023, dubbed “Operation Al Aqsa Flood,” Israel responded by placing Gaza under a total siege, cutting off electricity and water and blocking entry of food, fuel, and other goods essential for survival.

The siege was accompanied by a military invasion, and in mid-October, the IDF ordered the 1.1 million Palestinians inhabiting northern Gaza to flee south or be deemed “terrorists.”

On October 14^th, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese, warned the international community that there was a grave danger that Israel would perpetrate a mass ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

In a position paper published on October 17^th, 2023, the Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, which has close ties to the Israeli military and security establishment, revealed the intention to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.

The paper lauded Israel’s military assault on Gaza as “a unique and rare opportunity to evacuate the whole Gaza Strip.”

Then on October 24^th, the Israeli news outlet Calcalist reported on a document from the Israeli Intelligence Ministry stating that the operation in Gaza could “yield positive and long-term strategic results”—namely, the expulsion of Palestinians to the Sinai desert in Egypt.

The full document in Hebrew was published by the Israeli magazine Mekomit, and an English translation was published by +972 Magazine, an independent outlet run by a group of Palestinian and Israeli journalists.

As reported by Mekomit, the argument was made that it would be in the Palestinians’ own best interest to accept expulsion “compared to the number of casualties expected if the population remains.”

Either ethnic cleansing or genocide—that was the choice the Palestinians would effectively be offered.

The document stated that “the most dangerous alternative” to ethnic cleansing would be for the PA to take over Gaza because it could “lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Another option was to establish a “local Arab authority” other than the PA, but this idea, too, suffered from “significant deficiencies.”

The overall aim was to “motivate” Palestinians to flee Gaza—which would solve the problem of having to find a way to rule over them without any involvement from the existing Palestinian leadership.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office responded to the document’s publication by saying that no plan for governing Gaza after “eliminating Hamas’ governmental and military capabilities” had yet been officially discussed much less decided upon.

On November 10, 2023, when asked whether he supported Israeli resettlement in Gaza, Netanyahu expressed his view that this wasn’t “a realistic goal,” but that he aimed for “full security control.”

HAVING A MILITARY UNIT DEDICATED TO EXCUSING ATROCITIES TELLS YOU HOW EVIL ISRAEL IS

If Israel Was On The Side Of Truth And Morality It Would Not Have A Military Unit Dedicated To Manipulating The Public Narrative About Actions Which People See As Evil.

Israel is so evil that it has a military unit dedicated to coming up with excuses for the IDF’s atrocities. It has been reported that the IDF has a special unit it calls the “Legitimization Cell”, because it is tasked with finding justifications to legitimize the assassination of journalists and other war crimes for the purpose of “public relations”.

Probably goes without saying, but if Israel was on the side of truth and morality it would not have a military unit dedicated to manipulating the public narrative about actions which normal people would see as extremely evil.

Israel: We can’t allow Palestinian journalists to remain alive in Gaza because all the Palestinian journalists are Hamas.

Western journalists: Okay so let us in, that way there can be journalists documenting what’s happening in Gaza who aren’t Hamas.

Israel: [long pause] … No.

We have alienated various readers and online factions over the years with the things we have written, but that has usually been unintentional; normally we don’t like to alienate people who resonate with our work. Gaza was the first time we didn’t really care if we lost someone who disagreed with us.

It’s a sign of developing maturity to be able to see both sides of an issue, but it’s a sign of further maturity to understand that just because you can see both sides doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take sides on important and relevant moral issues with a clear right and wrong side. Stop fence-sitting on a genocide and grow up.

Nothing creates support for Hamas more than Israel’s actions in Gaza. Nothing creates hatred of Israel more than Israel’s actions in Gaza. Nothing creates hatred of Jews more than Israel’s actions in Gaza. Everything Israel’s supporters complain most about is caused by Israel.

The strongest argument that Israel is committing genocide is that all major human rights groups say it’s a genocide, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli rights groups like B’Tselem, along with the overwhelming majority of genocide scholars and human rights experts. The debate is over. This is a settled matter.

The hasbara machine hasn’t come up with a counter-argument for this. They hate it. Whenever it is used they always try to push the debate in some other direction where they have a counter-argument they’ve been trained to regurgitate, but when we stick to the universal consensus among human rights groups they always get mad.

It’s so undignified how western governments and news outlets keep talking about Israel’s officially stated reasons for its actions in Gaza like we don’t all know they want to get rid of the Palestinians who live there and have been trying to get rid of them for generations.

It is cool when Israel is criticized for something and someone goes “Oh yeah well America does that too!” Like that’s a defense. It’s like yes, those are both evil states who do evil things constantly, and they work in conjunction with each other and are not meaningfully separate.

Being an ally of Israel or the United States is immoral for many reasons, but this is especially the case during their joint genocide project in Gaza. They should both be made pariah states.

Start recognizing Palestinian humanity and then maybe you will be taken seriously when you talk about recognizing a Palestinian state.

Opposition to the Gaza holocaust has always been led from the bottom up. It started with Palestinians documenting their own genocide, then ordinary westerners saw this and began opposing it, then slowly the media and mainstream human rights organizations began following the leadership of the people and applying scrutiny to Israel’s atrocities, and then, even more slowly, western governments began feebly pushing back on Israel.

This has all happened in response to widespread public outcry forcing the western political/media class to respond. The mass media cannot retain its legitimacy in the eyes of the public if it keeps churning out brazen genocide propaganda without ever scrutinizing Israel. Governments cannot retain the consent of the governed if they completely ignore a mass atrocity that the public cares deeply about. So they were forced to start moving, or else risk the public turning on them.

The primary lesson here is that we must keep pushing this issue as hard as we can, because it’s working. They can’t ignore us anymore, and they’re feeling the pressure. Their response has been painfully weak and inadequate, but it’s infinitely more than we were seeing in the early months of the genocide. We need to keep hammering this thing.

The second lesson here is that our “leaders” are not actually our leaders. We are leading them on the most important moral issue of our time, and they are following us. It is an absolute certainty that western governments and media would be ignoring Gaza if the public had ignored it too. They definitely wanted us to ignore it, and for a long time it really seemed like they expected us to get exhausted and drop it. It wasn’t until we made it clear that this isn’t getting shuffled down the memory hole with the daily news churn that we really began to see things change.

We are leading this dance. So we need to keep leading. Keep driving. Keep pushing. The louder our voices get, the more movement we see from them.

So don’t stop!

THE AMERICAN REGIME TREATS ISRAELI PEDOPHILES BETTER THAN WOUNDED PALESTINIAN KIDS

In America The Only Way To Get Wounded Palestinian Children In The United States For Medical Treatment These Days Would Be To Disguise Them As Israeli Pedophiles.

Antiwar has a story out right now with the headline “Rep. Greene: US Should Let Gaza Children in for Medical Treatment, Prosecute Israeli Child Predators.”

It’s a headline that says so much about what’s going on in the world in just a few words. Is the American regime really not letting Gaza children in for medical treatment? Is the American regime really failing to prosecute Israelis who prey on children? Why are these necessary things to say? And why is it being left to Marjorie Taylor Greene to say them?

What’s crazy is that these are entirely true and legitimate grievances, as Dave DeCamp explains:

“The Georgia representative was referring to a recent State Department decision to block visas for Palestinians from Gaza in response to outrage from pro-Trump activist Laura Loomer over wounded Palestinian children arriving for medical treatment, and the case of Tom Alexandrovich, a senior Israeli cybersecurity official who was arrested in a sting operation in Nevada for attempting to lure a child for sexual purposes but was allowed to go back to Israel.”

Things are so screwed up that the only way to get wounded Palestinian children in and out of the United States for medical treatment these days would be to disguise them as Israeli pedophiles.

Israel apologists are still trying to make “we’re not starving children, we’re starving SICK children” work. Bari Weiss’s media outlet The Free Press has a new genocide apologia article out noting that twelve of the emaciated children we’ve seen in photos distributed by the mainstream press have had preexisting conditions like “cystic fibrosis, rickets, or other serious ailments.”

This argument is exactly the same as starting a fire in a crowded building and then claiming you can’t be guilty of murder by arson because many of the people who died in the fire were handicapped and elderly individuals who couldn’t escape quickly enough. Everyone knows the people who suffer first and worst in a famine are small children, the elderly, and the sick.

As others have pointed out, it really shows how desperate the Israel spinmeisters are getting that they would cite “rickets” as a pre-existing condition in their argument to dismiss concerns about starvation in Gaza, given that rickets is a condition caused by malnutrition.

Israel: We have to kill all the journalists in Gaza because they’re Hamas.

Western journalists: Okay so let us in so at least someone’s there to report what’s happening in Gaza.

Israel: We can’t, it’s not safe for you.

Western journalists: Why not?

Israel: Because then YOU’D be Hamas.

A tweet from former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett complaining that “Europe is becoming Islamized,” fearmongering about the number of Muslims who now live in some of Europe’s major cities.

Israelis are something else, man. They don’t want Muslims to live in the middle east, they don’t want Muslims to live in Europe. Kinda seems like they just don’t want Muslims to live.

The New York Post has an article out with the headline “Queens bodega named ‘Gaza Deli and Grill’ ignites fear among Jewish New Yorkers — including Oct. 7^th survivor: ‘I’m still not safe’”.

It’s just as ridiculous as it sounds. There’s a bodega in New York called “Gaza Deli and Grill” and Jewish locals are saying it makes them feel unsafe. This happens as an active genocide continues in Gaza, with Israel calling upon 60,000 IDF reservists in preparation for the planned ethnic cleansing of a million civilians from Gaza City.

Whenever you see the western press centering the feelings of western Jews with extreme aggression, it’s a safe bet that Israel has something especially ugly in the works.

It really seems to have taken the empire by surprise that the public has not played along with this. They really expected us to forget about Gaza within the first few weeks and let it fade into the background. The fact that the outcry has only gotten louder says encouraging things about ordinary members of the public, and about the future of the human species.

AN EXTREME TURN HAS TAKEN PLACE IN NETANYAHU’S “TOTAL VICTORY” RHETORIC

From Throwing His Military Under The Bus To His Expanded ‘Greater Israel’ Vision, The Prime Minister Has Observers Worried That Even Worse Policies Will Follow.

As Israel’s war on Gaza escalates with IDF troops now moving to take over Gaza City, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been deploying more extreme language than usual to describe his plans for “total” victory over Hamas. He has eschewed ceasefire talks, and is instead leaning into his expansive vision for a “Greater Israel,” which not only includes an Israeli takeover of Gaza but of neighboring territories too.

His public remarks and media appearances over the last week have caused some to observe that the prime minister may be taking his approach, which is already heavily influenced by the hardline right wing in his cabinet, to an even more maximalist level.

For example, Netanyahu completely dismissed the idea of a political solution for Gaza at a Newsmax conference hosted in Jerusalem last week.

“In the search for an alternative to victory, this idea emerged — what they call a ‘political solution,’ which is nothing more than another term for defeat and surrender. That will not happen,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew.

During the same remarks, Netanyahu appeared to be throwing his own military under the bus, suggesting IDF chiefs who had been calling for the Gaza campaign to end have lost their commitment to “victory.” “I will not give up on victory. The people of Israel will not give up on victory,” Netanyahu proclaimed, alleging that “victory” was now the last word in the army’s lexicon.

Appearing on an Israeli media channel last week, Netanyahu also said that Israel was looking for other countries to take in Palestinians, just as Trump had proposed to do back in Spring. “I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,” Netanyahu said.

During an interview, Netanyahu also endorsed the Greater Israel vision, which calls for Israel to expand to include other Middle Eastern countries. Arab nations widely condemned his comments, alleging that Netanyahu’s support for that idea threatens their security, and risks peace prospects in general.

And at the Newsmax conference, moreover, he also said there was “no starvation” in Gaza. “Hamas needs ozempic,” Netanyahu mused, referring to the popular weight loss drug.

Some spoke with experts about what Netanyahu’s more recent rhetoric means for his political trajectory, and for the future of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip. Broadly, observers suggest his amped up language points to a grim reality in which Netanyahu’s government has stripped away any pretense of a political solution and is closer than ever to carrying out a maximalist endgame of absolute control over the Gaza strip, with no regard for the Palestinians who live there.

UNPACKING NETANYAHU’S RHETORIC

Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg said Netanyahu, as a political leader, operates on a complex duality: his long-term reign as prime minister gives him a veneer of political stability, but also gives him leeway to make hard, even risky, choices for the sake of Israel’s future.

In this respect, Netanyahu’s recent rhetoric, which Goldberg describes as “more extreme” than usual, showcases his willingness to commit to these high-stakes choices — even if they are irreversible, or otherwise risk Israel’s security or international standing.

Netanyahu “is going for broke, he’s committed. He doesn’t have any other options,” Goldberg observed. “He is playing ‘chicken’ with the international community. He has made his choice and will be happy to let both Israel and Palestine go down in flames.”

Israel is reportedly in talks to send Gazans to South Sudan, and Israel is sending aid to the impoverished country as a likely sweetener. Whether the transfer of Gazans materializes does not matter, said Goldberg.

“It’s about making noise,” he charged. “It goes to show that Israel still has some international clout,” and that it has partners it can make political deals with, “even if [it has] to bribe them into it.”

Carol Daniel-Kasbari, Quincy Institute non-resident fellow and senior associate director of the Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Center, said that Netanyahu’s rhetoric “point[s] to an endgame of open-ended Israeli security dominance, shrinking space for a two-state outcome, and a coalition calculus that rewards ideological consistency over diplomatic compromise.”

Daniel-Kasbari said Netanyahu “governs with partners to his right whose agendas prioritize settlement expansion and permanent Israeli control.” Considering this political reality, “rejecting a negotiated track for Gaza and hinting at Gazan ‘emigration’ are not rhetorical flourishes; they’re policy signals,” she said, also highlighting Netanyahu’s historical opposition to a sovereign Palestinian state west of the Jordan river.

Daniel Levy, President of the American Middle East Project, said the Israeli prime minister has always supported this “Greater Israel” vision and cautioned not to over-interpret his comments.

As per the interview, however, Netanyahu now seems to be endorsing an “expansive definition which has been more regularly referenced by [Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich,” Levy pointed out. Smotrich has repeatedly advocated for a Greater Israel that would include parts of Palestine, Syria, and Jordan.

Nevertheless, Levy said Netanyahu has always “been very clear, including presenting bills to the Israeli parliament, that he opposes a Palestinian state, seeks to expand Israel’s borders, and he has acted on these intentions, including the intention to annex Palestinian territories.”

“This is indeed a decades-long project,” he said.

WILL ISRAEL ANNEX GAZA?

Israel is now positioning itself to force Palestinians out of Gaza City, where the IDF, pursuing a plan the Israeli security cabinet approved earlier this month, aims to displace about one million people. To that end, many Israelis are critical of such plans because of their perceived capacity to harm the remaining hostages, further weaken the IDF, and worsen the humanitarian crisis on the ground.

“Will Israel take this next step and carry out crimes against humanity after they have been officially approved by the Israeli government?” Goldberg asked, noting the obvious American regime’s complicity — where Washington has unconditionally transferred bombs, guns, ammo, and other supplies necessary for an Israeli military incursion and occupation. “Without being armed by the United States, nothing will happen.”

For its part, Washington has frequently deferred to Jerusalem regarding its possible plans for the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Early this month, Trump said it was “pretty much up to Israel,” to decide whether it would pursue occupying the territory.

Netanyahu said earlier this month that Israel would proceed with this takeover, deeming it “the best way to end the war and the best way to end it speedily.”

“If Israel decides to do this, the images will be horrible,” said Goldberg, who doubts that a complete takeover is possible, given the practical and logistical hurdles Israel would need to clear to achieve that goal.

“But then again…Netanyahu is so committed to this course, he has no other option. The Israeli military is desperate for a win,” he added.

“All of this may happen. And if it does, then, there really is no going back.”

AS MANY PEOPLE CAN BE KILLED BY SANCTIONS AS BY WARS

Economic Coercion Doesn’t Receive As Much Attention As Military Conflict — But It Can Be Just As Deadly And Just As Racist And Evil.

Amir Hossein Naroi was an Iranian boy afflicted with thalassaemia, an inherited blood disease that is treatable with transfusions and drugs that reduce toxic concentrations of iron. These drugs are produced by Novartis, a Swiss-American company, which stopped shipping them to Iran after President Donald Trump reimposed sanctions in May 2018. Four years later, Naroi died at the age of 10 due to complications caused by his lack of treatment. Naroi is one of nearly 150 patients that have died annually of the disease in Iran, where it is prevalent due to genetic factors, compared to fewer than 40 a year prior to the reimposition of sanctions.

Similar examples abound. Humanitarian agencies in Venezuela had their American bank accounts closed shortly after the American regime imposed oil sanctions on the country in 2019, hampering efforts to deliver food assistance to vulnerable people. Efforts to assist victims of the 2023 earthquake in Syria were hampered when banks refused to process donations for fear of being found in violation of American sanctions. A 2023 WHO-sponsored review found consistent adverse effects of sanctions on health and health systems in low and middle income countries.

Proponents of sanctions often dismiss these findings as inconclusive. Correlation does not imply causation, they argue. Mismanagement and corruption of governments under sanctions are frequently blamed as the primary culprits of socio-economic collapse. American regime officials routinely claim that sanctions include humanitarian exceptions, and typically refer to any humanitarian consequences of sanctions policies as “unintended” and resulting from “overcompliance” by financial institutions and other economic actors.

In an article published this month in The Lancet Global Health with co-authors Silvio Rendón and Mark Weisbrot, these claims were addressed by analysing the causal effect of international sanctions on age-specific mortality rates in a panel dataset of sanctions episodes for 152 countries between 1971 and 2021. A battery of econometric methods were applied that specifically designed to identify causal effects from observational data.

There was robust evidence of a significant causal association between sanctions and increased mortality across most age groups, with particularly pronounced effects for infants and young children. Being subjected to sanctions, for example, leads to an estimated 8 per cent increase in the mortality rate of children under five in the affected countries. This framework was used to quantify the number of deaths attributable to sanctions in targeted countries. It was estimated that, over the past decade, sanctions were associated with approximately 564,000 excess deaths annually. This death toll is comparable to current estimates of civilian and battle deaths from armed conflict during those years.

The deadliest sanctions are those imposed outside the multilateral UN framework — and particularly those imposed by the American regime. One possible explanation is that American sanctions often explicitly aim to cause a deterioration in living standards in target countries under the assumption that worsening socio-economic conditions will cause regime change. The use of so-called “smart sanctions” that target specific wrongdoers rather than entire populations often replicate the effects of comprehensive sanctions by focusing on central banks and state-owned enterprises that play vital roles in the functioning of the economy. These targeted sanctions can have effects — including excess deaths of civilians — nearly as damaging as those of less targeted measures.

Over the past few decades, the use of economic sanctions has expanded dramatically. The share of the global economy subject to unilateral sanctions grew from 5 per cent in the 1960s to 25 per cent between 2010 and 2022. The findings suggest that these measures cause direct harm and many excess deaths. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any other policy instrument with such severe adverse effects on human life that is used so pervasively.

Woodrow Wilson once described sanctions as “more tremendous than war”, a “silent, deadly remedy” that no nation would be able to withstand. He believed their sheer destructiveness would lead them to be used sparingly. A century later, the opposite has happened: sanctions have become a default weapon of statecraft, wielded routinely. But a policy that kills hundreds of thousands of civilians is neither peaceful nor defensible. It is an economic weapon of mass destruction — used by the very powers that claim to uphold global norms.