Jeffrey D. Sachs & Sybil Fares
Common Dreams

We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation

For nearly 30 years, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.

Netanyahu’s fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.

The founders of Netanyahu’s political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” The now infamous chant, “from the River to the Sea,” which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.

Donald Jeffries
donaldjeffries.substack.com

"Hate" in a free society | It has become obvious over the past few years that more and more Americans are questioning not only the wisdom behind our unwavering support of Israel, but Jewish power and influence itself. The artist formerly known as Kanye West played a large role here, as did other prominent Blacks like Jason Whitlock and Candace Owens.

White conservatives, which in the past were more likely to criticize Israel, have been completely coopted by the Rapture bunch, the ones who enable the Jews’ elitist notion that they are God’s “chosen people.” Every politician who hopes to hold elected office visits the Wailing Wall in Israel, and dons a yarmulke. I’d call it just another humiliation ritual, but I’m sure that would be labeled “anti-Semitic.” Consider how Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that “if the Capitol crumbles to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to Israel…that’s fundamental.” One member of our Congress has worn his IDF uniform to work. Lindsay Graham isn’t the only U.S. “representative” that has stated Israel should nuke Iran. Whether or not he really did have some kind of verbal altercation with Bibi Netanyahu, Donald Trump’s support of Israel is such that they have streets named after him there.

Because Black people are generally untouchable in terms of public criticism, their anti-Zionist or blunt anti-Jewish comments were ignored at first. Ignored by a state controlled media which consists of a wildly disproportionate number of Jews in prominent positions. But something happened when Ben Shapiro- who fits every historical stereotype of an obnoxious, parasitic figure who profits from a society he considers himself outside of- fired Candace Owens from the Daily Wire. Prior to that, Owens was a pretty innocuous Black conservative- the kind the Stupid Party salivates over. However, Owens was triggered enough by her dismissal to apparently start researching some forbidden topics. Pretty much anything to do with Jews collectively, the religion or the race, is “forbidden.” Ask the Anti-Defamation League, which serves as an unregistered agent for the foreign state of Israel.

Pascal Lottaz
Pascal’s Substack

Despite the mass-dying in the world's largest death-camp, western cameras still turn away from the blood and toward the same old Zionist script to justify genocide.

How many times over the past decades have we been told that journalism is meant to “speak truth to power”? Oh, sweet, sweet lies and lullabies. Narrative opium for the masses. In fact, today, as always, mainstream journalism obviously protects power from truth. As Gaza is turned into rubble and its people starved in front of all our eyes on social media, the mainstream—especially in the West’s settler colonies like New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.—acts as an accomplice to genocide.

A few days ago, I hosted a panel of New Zealand-based journalists—Eugene Doyle, Jeremy Rose, and Ramon Das—to discuss just that. The three explained in detail how state media like Radio New Zealand (RNZ) washes the sins of its complicity away by absolving itself from all guilt. How do they do it? Well, RNZ just wrote a report about its own coverage and declared that all is well! It’s really that simple for these media outlets that constantly shower each other (and in this case themselves) with praise.

So, in addition to the lies like the “40 beheaded babies” and other BS that they report on when spoon-fed by western officialdom, they add to this strategic silence, soft language, and selective storytelling to whitewash the currently ongoing crime of crimes. Of course ,this is not just a New Zealand problem but the story of how the West launders genocide through the language of journalism.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

All NATO leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes and inciting crimes against peace.

Israel’s years-long covert aggression against Iran has now escalated into open war following a massive wave of air strikes overnight in which several Iranian cities, including the capital, Tehran, were targeted with hundreds of missiles and drones.

Several of Iran’s top military commanders have been killed, as well as dozens of civilians, according to Iranian media.

Tel Aviv is warning that the attacks will continue for weeks. U.S. President Donald Trump has gloated about “excellent” strikes and warned of more to come, although he also claimed that he advised Israel against taking military action.

The U.S. claims it did not participate but did give “exquisite” intelligence for the attack. Meanwhile, NATO is believed to have provided military support to thwart Iranian retaliatory strikes while the organization’s civilian leader, Mark Rutte, deceptively appealed for a “de-escalation”.

The Iranian leadership is vowing a painful retaliation in the coming days for Israel’s “declaration of war”. The situation is spiraling into an all-out war in the Middle East, the dimensions of which are potentially devastating for the region and indeed the entire world.

Pascal Lottaz
Pascal’s Substack

In an unprecedented and unprovoked military attack, Israel kills several top leaders of the Iranian military, targets the country's nuclear facilities and commits yet another blatant crime.

Overnight, the terrorist regime in Tel Aviv added another crime of aggression to its nearly endless list of the worst of all international crimes. This time, by attacking Iran in a massive bombing campaign, which Netanyahu says will continue until he judges that what he calls a “threat” from Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons has subsided.

This is, of course, utter rubbish and reminiscent of the United States’ excuse in 2003 to commit the same crime against Iraq under the pretext of Saddam’s WMDs posing an “imminent threat” to the USA and the whole world. Netanyahu is conjuring up exactly the same phantom—even using the terminology of this being a “preemptive” strike—but with even less reason. Not only is it a verified and accepted truth, even by Israel and the USA, that the Iranians currently have no nuclear weapons, but the Americans were in active negotiations with them and scheduled to hold another meeting on Sunday, when Israel decided to commit this blatant act of war.

Shahrokh Saei
Tehran Times

Israel’s airstrikes against Iran in the early hours of Friday are not just a military provocation — they are a sign of strategic desperation

The strikes, launched amid escalating tensions in the region, reflect Tel Aviv’s struggle to maintain dominance in a West Asia that is rapidly shifting in favor of resistance forces. Iran, having already demonstrated its missile and drone capabilities in past confrontations, is now positioned to deliver a powerful and measured response that could redefine the balance of power.

The initial reports of the attacks came from Tehran, soon followed by a cascade of explosions across multiple provinces. Social media footage shows widespread damage to civilian neighborhoods, underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the aggression. Israel later claimed responsibility, targeting sites in Natanz, Khorramabad, Khondab, and other areas. The Israeli military called the strike Operation ‘Rising Lion’.

This act of unprovoked aggression comes amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose warmongering policies continue to destabilize the region. While U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to distance Washington from the strikes, calling them a “unilateral action,” observers across the region believe such a major operation could not have happened without at least tacit U.S. support — especially amid indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

In addition to structural damage, Israel’s attack reportedly killed several Iranian military personnel. Iran has pledged a strong response, making clear that such provocations will not go unanswered.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets early Friday morning. The situation is fluid: The answers will determine the course of this crisis.

This followed the latest US-Iranian nuclear talks stalling, continued speculation that Iran is secretly building nukes, and growing Israeli anxiety with the situation. From the looks of it, Israel decapitated the Iranian Armed Forces and the IRGC, yet Iran still vowed to retaliate. The situation is fluid, but as of Friday morning Moscow time, there are five questions whose answers will determine the course of this crisis:

1. To What Extent Did The US Assist Israel?

Trump publicly distanced himself from Israel’s rapid lead-up to these unprecedented strikes, which followed his reported rift with Bibi, but Iranian policymakers have long believed that the US and Israel are iron-clad allies that always work together. Their assessment of the extent to which the US assisted Israel in these strikes will therefore determine the scope and scale of their retaliation. If they conclude that the US played a role, then American military assets in the region and elsewhere might be targeted.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Considering that the realistic range of Russia’s retaliatory options is now limited, Bibi likely calculated that the harm to bilateral ties will be manageable, ergo why Israel wouldn’t have much to lose by finally going through with this.

Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Brodksy said that Israel transferred US-made Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine but was contradicted by his Foreign Ministry. They were unconvincing though so ties with Russia might be harmed after its UN envoy warned of “certain political consequences” last summer if this happened.

The region has changed since then after Hezbollah chief Nasrallah was killed, Assad fled Syria, and Iran resumed nuclear talks with the US, however, so such consequences might be limited.

After all, it’s no longer realistic to countenance the scenario of Russia arming Hezbollah, finally allowing Syria to use its S-300s to defend itself from attacking Israeli jets, or providing other forms of indirect support to the Resistance in its regional proxy war with Israel that’s now practically lost.

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

Traditionally, nurses are beyond criticism. They are `angels' and they have always received a `good press'. But nurses have changed. And they have changed a good deal. The result is that today's nurses are nothing like their predecessors. If they are to be forced back into doing what they should be doing then they need to be criticised - and their shortcomings need to be identified.

The big problem is that today's nurses are too self-important to carry out any of the traditional tasks entrusted to nurses. Modern nurses don't like to bother much with caring, touching, feeding or comforting. They regard themselves as above collecting bedpans or plumping up pillows. Nurses are now too self-important to feed patients or to lift them and too protective of their past to let anyone else do these things either. It is a tragedy that as nurses have become too important to nurse, no other group has been allowed to take on the most essential caring tasks. Auxiliaries, for example, are not allowed to do anything with to or for patients and the result is that there is no one on the average hospital ward to wash, feed or care for patients.

In the bad old days nurses would help their patients in a thousand tiny ways. They would make sure that their female patients wore clean nighties and had their hair brushed before visiting time. They don't do these things any more. And it isn't that they have other, more important things to do. Go into any hospital these days and you will see half a dozen nurses sitting around the nurses’ station chatting and eating chocolates. (It's no wonder they're all so fat. You'd think nurses would be more concerned with their health. If they got up and moved about a bit occasionally they would burn up some of the calories.)

Nurses should bandage wounds, make beds, empty bedpans and soothe sweaty brows. They should take temperatures and record pulse rates and give out prescribed medicines. That's what they are there for and it's what they are best at. It is also what patients need from them. These are important tasks. Sadly, most nurses consider themselves far too grand for such work. Nurses have become lazy.

David Swanson
World BEYOND War

“Despite the fact that deterrence remains an article of faith among the ‘realists’ who have orchestrated U.S. strategic policy and who continue to do so, despite its incoherence and instability, much of this faith is lip service only, analogous to deeply religious individuals who profess belief in heaven, yet rarely rejoice when a loved one dies. Thus, if the U.S. government really believed in nuclear deterrence — or in the billions of dollars spent on Ballistic Missile Defense — there wouldn’t be such hyperventilating about the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea or possibly by Iran in the future.” —David Barash

There was a webinar [a while ago] about nuclear deterrence. I’ve also just been reading a fantastic book on the topic called Threats: Intimidation and Its Discontents by David P. Barash. There’s an online book club with the author and free copy of the book coming up for that. Barash’s central thesis is that the idea of nuclear deterrence makes no sense. It’s kind of hard to see why anyone would argue with him.

MSNBC recently aired this old comment by U.S. nuclear scientist Leo Szilard: “Here, I have made a little calculation. Assuming that we make a radioactive element that will live for five years and we just let it go into the air… forming a dust layer on the surface of the Earth, everybody would be killed. . . . And you may, of course, ask, ‘What is the practical importance of this? Who would want to kill everybody on Earth?’ I do not know whether we would be willing to do it, and I do not know whether the Russians would be willing to do it. But I think that we may threaten to do it. And I think that the Russians might threaten to do it. And who will take the risk, then, not to take that threat seriously?”

Elena Panina (Елена Панина)
Елена Панина/Telegram

The further away, the less doubt remains that after the exhaustion of Ukraine, Poland will become the main element of direct military pressure on Russia and the Union States. The authoritative RAND Corporation has published a report entitled “Modernizing Poland's Armed Forces: A New Cornerstone of European Security” listing exactly what needs to be done to give the Poles the necessary capabilities and character.

In particular, the Pentagon is advised to “temporarily increase its military presence in Poland” so that Poland has time to modernize its army to its most combat-ready state. Washington should also figure out how to help Warsaw accelerate the purchase of weapons from the United States - on credit, of course.

Interestingly, the modernization of the Polish army is presented as an alleged response to the SWO. The report begins with the phrase

💬 “Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine prompted Polish politicians to begin military modernization and expansion of the armed forces at a pace, scale and direction unprecedented in post-communist Poland.”

However, this in no way explains why Warsaw has modernized the army until 2022 - for example, by purchasing F-35s in 2019. In reality, preparing for a conflict with Russia is Poland's long-term strategy, not reacting to the current conflict.

Leonid Savin
Oriental Review

Behind all the talks about a combination of ecology and politics there are always the interests of certain oligarchic groups.

The concept of sustainable development has been advertised on international platforms for many years, primarily in the United Nations.. At the Summit of this Organization in 2015, 193 countries signed 17 Sustainable Development Goals, where, in general, everyone agreed that the world needs a certain model that takes into account both political and economic, as well as social and environmental, aspects.

Even earlier, at the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, the concept of sustainability was adopted as the blueprint for economic and environmental programs under the auspices of the same UN. The UN Millennium Development Goals were also directly related to this theory.

Although no one denies the need for careful management of natural resources and for the environmental protection, it is alarming that issues of sustainable development are actively promoted by typically globalist projects such as the Davos Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab. Similarly, George Soros and Bill Gates, with their projects also related to the UN through WHO and other initiatives, regularly advocate for sustainable development. Therefore, it is necessary to consider in more detail what kind of theory and methodology it is. And also who is, in particular, promoting it and why.

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

Everything the police do seems designed to isolate them still further from the communities they are paid to protect.

Back in 2010 I bravely (or idiotically) wrote a long book called `2020’ in which I tried to forecast what our future would be like in the year 2020. Here is a short extract from that book which is now available again as a paperback. (For details CLICK HERE)

My 87-year-old father parked his car (quite legally) and went into a hotel to have lunch. While he was enjoying his meal the manager tottered over and told him that the police wanted to speak to him. My father abandoned his meal and struggled down the steps to the roadside. Another motorist had nudged his car while parking. There was no damage to either car. My father's car was parked perfectly legally. The police were in the vicinity only because they had been called to another minor traffic accident. My father confirmed that there was no damage and was eventually allowed to go back into the hotel to finish his (by now cold and ruined) luncheon. A couple of weeks later he received a letter from someone in the local `collisions department' of the constabulary informing him that the police had given themselves six months to decide whether or not to take legal action as a result of his collision. At the time of the offence, remember, he was sitting in a hotel eating his lunch while his car was parked outside. And, remember, there was no damage done to the vehicle and neither he nor anyone else had complained. He received further warnings about this non-existent incident and was, as a conscientious, law-abiding citizen unnerved by them. He knew he had done absolutely nothing wrong. But the police were, nevertheless, warning him about some unspecified legal action.

A 71-year-old widow who prodded a 17-year-old hoodie who had been throwing stones at her window found herself charged with assault. When the hoodie threw stones at her windows she pursued the stone thrower to tell him off. When she caught up with him (the fact that she was able to do so says more than we would like to know about the health and fitness of the current generation) she `addressed him frankly' and prodded him in the chest with a finger. The police were called and instead of arresting the stone thrower they arrested the old lady and bundled her into the back of a police van. She was eventually ordered to pay £50 costs and given a conditional discharge.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

The trouble is, these effete, elite Europeans are running the risk of starting a nuclear world war with their puny games.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and other European leaders are desperately playing with fire in a bid to sabotage diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. It’s a nefarious role with a long history.

This week, Merz caused a storm (by the way, his grandfather was a Nazi Stormtrooper) when he publicly declared that Germany was henceforth giving permission to Ukraine to fire long-range missiles at pre-war Russian territory.

The chancellor, who only took up the office three weeks ago on May 6, also indicated that he was considering approval for the supply of German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. The Taurus has a range of 500 kilometers and thus could hit the Russian capital, Moscow.

Russian Federation: Memorandum
Interfax (Русский текст ниже)

Moscow. June 2. INTERFAX.RU - Interfax publishes the full text of the Russian memorandum handed over to the Ukrainian side on Monday in Istanbul:

Section I

Main parameters of the final settlement

1) International legal recognition of Crimea, LNR, DNR, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as part of the Russian Federation; complete withdrawal of AFU units and other Ukrainian paramilitary formations from their territories;

2) Ukraine's neutrality, which implies its refusal to join military alliances and coalitions, as well as a ban on any military activities of third states on Ukrainian territory and the stationing there of foreign armed formations, military bases, and military infrastructure;

3) termination and refusal to conclude in the future international treaties and agreements inconsistent with the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Section;

4) confirmation of Ukraine's status as a state that does not possess nuclear and other WMD, with the establishment of a direct ban on their reception, transit, and deployment on the territory of Ukraine;

Leo Hohmann
LeoHohman.com

Ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson says Ukraine could not have pulled this off on its own and that it bears the fingerprints of a CIA and/or British MI6 operation.

By now you’ve all heard something about Ukraine’s massive assault of killer drones that attacked Russian airfields housing Russia’s nuclear bomber fleet in Siberia and several other locations deep within the country’s heartland.

The mainstream narrative is that the operation took upwards of 18 months to plan and execute and was “personally overseen” by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sorry, folks, but I don’t buy it. This attack was not something a guy like Zelensky, whose skill set includes being a former homo-erotic dancer and actor, was prepared for. The attack, according to mainstream reports, took out 41 aircraft or roughly 34 percent of Russia’s fleet of strategic bombers.

Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter's Substack

Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb has crossed the threshold when it comes to triggering a Russian nuclear response. How Russia and the United States respond could determine the fate of the world.

In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that “The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and play a key role in maintaining the regional balance and stability.”

In the intervening years, western analysts and observers have accused Russia and its leadership of irresponsibly invoking the threat of nuclear weapons as a means of “saber rattling”—a strategic bluff to hide operational and tactical shortfalls in Russian military capabilities.

In 2020 Russia published, for the first time, an unclassified version of its nuclear doctrine. The document, called “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” noted that Russia “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons” when Moscow is acting “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

The document also stated that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in case of an “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions.”

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Tonight will be fateful for the conflict’s future.

Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him every finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

This is a predictable response to Finland’s unnecessary and highly provocative decision to join NATO.

The New York Times (NYT) recently published an article about how “Russia Beefs Up Bases Near Finland’s Border”, which relied on satellite imagery to reach that conclusion. Russia’s northern military build-up is portrayed as ominous in their piece, with speculation abounding about its post-Ukraine plans among those who they interviewed. To their credit, the NYT’s authors did reference Russia’s perceptions about NATO expansion, but they didn’t take them to their logical conclusion with regard to Finland.

No mention is made about how unnecessary its decision to join NATO was. Prior to that, Finland was already a so-called “shadow member” of NATO in the sense of having closely integrated with the bloc and practically obtained interoperability with its forces after years of joint training. Nevertheless, it didn’t have Article 5 mutual defense guarantees, but they objectively weren’t needed since there was never any credible scenario where Russia would launch an unprovoked attack or all-out invasion of Finland.

Shortly after the special operation began over three years ago, Finland’s liberal-globalist elite fearmongered that their country might be next after Ukraine, which was the false pretext upon which they reversed their decades-long stance towards formal NATO membership. Far from joining out of sincere concerns for their security, they did so solely to expand NATO’s border with Russia, which could then be presented as a symbolic Western victory no matter the outcome of this ongoing proxy war. Here are three background briefings about this to bring unaware readers up to speed:

Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The deeper the belief in the righteousness of the cause, the easier it becomes to love the war that serves it.

Norway identifies itself as a model of a liberal and tolerant peace-oriented nation. Yet, a collective mindset has developed with intense distrust and loathing of anyone who deviates from the government’s official truth and war narratives.

Here is a social experiment to test the claim above. I am a professor of political science, but I am also a politician running for Parliament. My recently established political party is primarily an anti-war party, and we started a poster campaign on public transportation in Oslo. The core message was that we are for negotiations and against weapons for the war in Ukraine. This seemed like a reasonable position as Norway previously had (until 2022) a policy of not sending weapons to countries at war (as it escalates and can make us a participant), and our country used to advocate for diplomacy and negotiations as the path to peace.

Norway has abandoned these policies and unified under the new mantra that “weapons are the path to peace”, and we have boycotted basic diplomacy with Russia for more than three years at a time when hundreds of thousands of young men died in the trenches. Was our peace-oriented nation ready to at least consider the argument that we should return to our former policies of negotiating instead of fueling the war with more weapons to fight the world’s largest nuclear power?