Archives: Articles

By Jonathan Cook

Hiding the True Numbers It Has Killed in Gaza

12 Dec 2025 – The biggest con trick Israel has managed to pull off over the past two years is imposing entirely phoney parameters on a “debate” in the West about the credibility of the death toll in Gaza, now officially standing at just over 70,000.

It is not just that we have been endlessly bogged down in rows about whether Gaza’s medical authorities can be trusted, or how many of the dead are Hamas fighters. (Despite Israeli disinformation campaigns, the Israeli military itself believes more than 80 per cent of the dead are civilians.)

Or even that these “debates” always ignore the fact that, early on, Israel wrecked Gaza’s capacity to count its dead by destroying the enclave’s governmental offices and its hospitals. The 70,000 figure is likely to be a drastic under-estimate.

No, the biggest con trick is that Israel has successfully penned us all into a “debate”, one entirely divorced from reality, that relates only to those killed directly by its bombs and gunfire.

The truth is that far, far larger numbers of people in Gaza have been actively killed by Israel not through these direct means but through what statisticians refer to as “indirect” methods.

These people were killed by Israel destroying their homes and leaving them with no shelter. By Israel destroying their water and electricity supplies and their sanitation systems. By Israel levelling their hospitals. By Israel starving them. By Israel creating the perfect conditions for disease to spread. The list of ways Israel is killing people in Gaza goes on and on.

Imagine your own societies levelled in the way Gaza has been.

How long would your elderly parents survive in this hellscape?

How well would your diabetic child fare, or your sister with asthma, or your brother with cancer?

How well would you cope with catching pneumonia, or even a common cold, if you hadn’t had more than one small meal a day for months on end?

How would your wife deal with a difficult childbirth if there were no anaesthetics, or no hospital nearby, or a barely functioning hospital overwhelmed with victims from Israel’s latest bombing run.

And what would be the chances of your baby surviving if its mother could produce no milk from her starvation diet? And if you could not give the baby formula feed because Israel was blocking supplies from entry into the enclave? And if, anyway, the contaminated water supply could not be mixed into the formula powder?

None of these kinds of deaths are included in the figure of 70,000. And all precedents show that many, many times more people are killed through these indirect methods than directly through fatal injuries from bombs and bullets.

According to a letter from experts in this field to the Lancet, studies of other wars—most of them far less destructive than Israel’s on the tiny enclave—indicate that between three and 15 times more people are killed by indirect, rather than direct, methods of warfare.

The authors conservatively estimate an indirect death toll four times greater than the direct death toll. That would mean, at a minimum, 350,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza through Israel’s actions.

The reality is likely to be even worse. That is without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been left with horrific injuries and psychological trauma.

Israel’s war planners know exactly how this direct-to-indirect ratio works. Which is why they chose to destroy nearly every home in Gaza, to bomb the power, sanitation and water facilities, to level the hospitals, and to block aid month after month.

They knew this would be the way Israel could carry out a genocide while offering its allies—western governments and its army of lobbyists—a “get out of jail card” for their active complicity.

Donald Trump’s so-called “ceasefire” is just another layer of deception in this endless game of smoke and mirrors. The UN’s child protection agency, UNICEF, reports that less than a quarter of aid trucks are getting into Gaza, past Israel’s continuing starvation blockade, despite Israeli commitments agreed as part of the “ceasefire”. Apparently, this doesn’t register as a gross ceasefire violation. It goes unnoticed.

UNICEF reports further that in October alone, at the start of the “ceasefire”, nearly 18,000 new mothers and babies had to be hospitalised in Gaza from acute malnutrition.

The genocide isn’t over. Israel may have slowed the rate of direct killings it is committing by bombing Gaza, but the indirect killings continue unabated. And so does the Israeli-engineered “debate” in the West, one designed to obscure and excuse the mass murder of Gaza’s population.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By The Chris Hedges Report

The Genocide in Gaza has not stopped. It has been rebranded. And that is enough of a linguistic subterfuge to get the world to ignore it.

15 Dec 2025 – First, it was Israel’s right to defend itself. Then it was a war, even though, by Israel’s own military intelligence database, 83 percent of the casualties were civilians. The 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, living under an Israeli air, land and sea blockade, have no army, air force, no mechanized units, no tanks, no navy, no missiles, no heavy artillery, no fleets of killer drones, no sophisticated tracking systems to map all movements, or an ally like the United States, which has given Israel at least $21.7 billion in military aid since Oct. 7, 2023.

Now, it is a “ceasefire.” Except of course, as usual, Israel only abided by the first of the 20 stipulations. It freed around 2,000 Palestinian captives held in Israeli prisons — 1700 of whom were detained after Oct. 7 — as well as around 300 bodies of Palestinians, in exchange for the return of the 20 remaining Israeli captives.

Israel has violated every other condition. It has tossed the agreement — brokered by the Trump administration without Palestinian participation — into the bonfire with all the other agreements and peace accords concerning Palestinians. Israel’s extensive and blatant flouting of international agreements and international law — Israel and its allies refuse to abide by three sets of legally binding orders by the International Cout of Justice (ICJ) and two ICJ advisory opinions, as well as the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law — presage a world where the law is whatever the most militarily advanced countries say it is.

The sham peace plan — “President Donald J. Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” — in an act of stunning betrayal of the Palestinian people, was endorsed by most of the U.N. Security Council in November, with China and Russia abstaining. Member states washed their hands of Gaza and turned their backs on the genocide.

The adoption of resolution 2803 (2025), as the Middle East scholar Norman Finkelstein writes, “was simultaneously a revelation of moral insolvency and a declaration of war against Gaza. By proclaiming international law null and void, the Security Council proclaimed itself null and void. Vis-à-vis Gaza, the Council transmuted into a criminal conspiracy.”

The next phase is supposed to see Hamas surrender its weapons and Israel withdraw from Gaza. But these two steps will never happen. Hamas — along with other Palestinian factions — reject the Security Council resolution. They say they will disarm only when the occupation ends and a Palestinian state is created. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed that if Hamas does not disarm, it will be done “the hard way.”

The “Board of Peace,” headed by Trump, will ostensibly govern Gaza along with armed mercenaries from the Israel-allied International Stabilization Force, although no country seems anxious to commit their troops. Trump promises a Gaza Riviera that will function as a “special economic zone” — a territory operating outside of state law governed entirely by private investors, such as the Peter Thiel-backed charter city in Honduras. This will be achieved through the “voluntary” relocation of Palestinians — with those fortunate enough to own land offered digital tokens in exchange. Trump declares that the U.S. “will take over the Gaza Strip” and “own it.” It is a return to the rule of viceroys — though apparently not the odious Tony Blair. Palestinians, in one of the most laughable points in the plan, will be “deradicalized” by their new colonial masters.

But these fantasies will never come to fruition. Israel knows what it wants to do in Gaza and it knows no nation will intercede. Palestinians will struggle to survive in primitive and dehumanizing conditions. They will, as they have so many times in the past, be betrayed.

Israel has committed 738 violations of the ceasefire agreement between Oct. 10 and Dec. 12, including 358 land and air bombardments, the killing of at least 383 Palestinians and the injuring of 1,002 others, according to the Government Media Office in Gaza and the Palestinian Health Ministry. That’s an average of six Palestinians killed daily in Gaza — down from an average of 250 a day before the “ceasefire.” Israel said it killed a senior Hamas commander, Raed Saad, on Saturday, in a missile strike on a car on Gaza’s coastal road. Three others were also apparently killed in the strike.

The genocide is not over. Yes, the pace has slowed. But the intent remains unchanged. It is slow motion killing. The daily numbers of dead and wounded — with increasing numbers falling sick and dying from the cold and rain — are not in the hundreds but the dozens.

December saw an average of 140 aid trucks allowed into Gaza each day — instead of the promised 600 — to keep Palestinians on the edge of famine and ensure widespread malnutrition. In October, some 9,300 children in Gaza under five were diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition, according to UNICEF. Israel has opened the border crossing into Egypt at Rafah, but only for Palestinians leaving Gaza. It is not open for those who want to return to Gaza, as stipulated in the agreement. Israel has seized some 58 percent of Gaza and is steadily moving its demarcation line — known as “the yellow line” — to expand its occupation. Palestinians who cross this arbitrary line — which constantly shifts and is poorly marked when it is marked at all — are shot dead or blown up — even if they are children.

Palestinians are being crammed into a shrinking, fetid, overcrowded concentration camp until they can be deported. Ninety-two percent of Gaza’s residential buildings have been damaged or destroyed and around 81 percent of all structures are damaged, according to UN estimates. The Strip, only 25 miles long and seven-and-a-half miles wide, has been reduced to 61 million tons of rubble, including nine million tons of hazardous waste that includes asbestos, industrial waste, and heavy metals, in addition to unexploded ordnance and an estimated 10,000 decaying corpses. There is almost no clean water, electricity or sewage treatment. Israel blocks shipments of construction supplies, including cement and steel, shelter materials, water infrastructure and fuel, so nothing can be rebuilt.

Eighty-two percent of Israeli Jews support the ethnic cleansing of the entire population of Gaza and 47 percent support killing all civilians in cities captured by the Israeli military. Fifty-nine percent support doing the same to Palestinian citizens of Israel. Seventy-nine percent of Israeli Jews say they are “not so troubled” or “not troubled at all” by reports of famine and suffering among the population in Gaza, according to a survey conducted in July. The words “Erase Gaza” appeared more than 18,000 times in Hebrew-language Facebook posts in 2024 alone, according to a new report on hate speech and incitement against Palestinians.

The newest form of genocidal celebration in Israel — where social media and news channels routinely chortle over the suffering of Palestinians — is the sprouting of golden nooses on the lapels of members of the far-right political party Otzma Yehudit, Israel’s version of the Ku Klux Klan, including one worn by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

They are pushing a bill through the Knesset which seeks to mandate the death penalty for Palestinians who “intentionally or indifferently causes the death of an Israeli citizen,” if they are said to be motivated by “racism or hostility toward a public,” and with the purpose of harming the Israeli state or “the rebirth of the Jewish people in its land,” the Israeli human rights group Adalah explains. More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli jails since Oct. 7. If the new bill becomes law — it has been cleared through its first reading — it will join the wave of more than 30 anti-Palestinian laws enacted since October 7.

The message the genocide sends to the rest of the world, more than a billion of whom live on less than a dollar a day, is unequivocable: We have everything and if you try and take it away from us, we will kill you.

This is the new world order. It will look like Gaza. Concentration camps. Starvation. Obliteration of infrastructure and civil society. Mass killing. Wholesale surveillance. Executions. Torture, including the beatings, electrocutions, waterboarding, rape, public humiliation, deprivation of food and denial of medical care routinely used on Palestinians in Israeli prisons. Epidemics. Disease. Mass graves where corpses are bulldozed into unmarked pits and where bodies, as in Gaza, are dug up and torn apart by packs of ravenous wild dogs.

We are not destined for the Shangri-La sold to a gullible public by fatuous academics such as Stephen Pinker. We are destined for extinction. Not only individual extinction — which our consumer society furiously attempts to hide by peddling the fantasy of eternal youth — but wholesale extinction as temperatures rise to make the globe uninhabitable. If you think the human species will respond rationally to the ecocide, you are woefully out of touch with human nature. You need to study Gaza. And history.

If you live in the Global North, you will get to peer out at the horror, but slowly this horror, as the climate breaks down, will migrate home, turning most of us into Palestinians. Given our complicity in the genocide, it is what we deserve.

Empires, when they feel threatened, always embrace the instrument of genocide. Ask the victims of the Spanish conquistadors. Ask Native Americans. Ask the Herero and Nama. Ask the Armenians. Ask the survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Ask the Indians who survived the Bengal famine or the Kikuyu who rose against their British colonizers in Kenya. Climate refugees will get their turn.

This is not the end of the nightmare. It is the beginning.

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Miguel Santos García

Escalation of Economic and Military Campaign? – The seizure of the Skipper marks the opening of a new and perilous chapter in the US bullying pressure campaign.

16 Dec 2025 – The United States has escalated its military and economic campaign against the Venezuelan government by moving beyond economic sanctions to the physical seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of the Bolivarian country. US military and law enforcement personnel boarded and commandeered a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) off the coast of Venezuela, directly confiscating its sanctioned cargo, an act denounced as piracy by Caracas and other states amid a broader escalation of economic warfare and military deployment in the Caribbean Sea.

The theft described correctly by Caracas as “an act of international piracy,” adds another layer to the US carving a sphere of influence in the hemisphere by targeting Venezuela and in Washington’s bid to sever the Bolivarian country’s primary source of revenue and as it attempts to force its president Nicolas Maduro into capitulation. The US has built up its largest military presence in the region in decades, including deploying the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean.

The military buildup has been accompanied by a campaign of lethal strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats, which has killed at least 84 people since September. Concurrently, the European Union, a US vassal, is deliberating measures to bypass member states opposing the confiscation and use of seized Russian assets, as they also seek to seize the supposed ‘Russian shadow fleet’ vessels in the Baltic sea, all the while Ukrainian sea drones have targeted two vessels from allegedly from the shadowy fleet as well in the Black Sea, thus by all accounts the US-led West is de facto amidst a row of harsh illegal geopolitical moves.

Pirates of the Caribbean
On December 10th, US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the execution of a seizure warrant for a crude tanker transporting oil from Venezuela and Iran. The operation, involving the FBI, Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and US military support, was captured in a 45-second video showing two helicopters approaching the vessel and armed personnel in camouflage rappelling onto its deck. The target was identified by maritime analysts as the VLCC Skipper, which had loaded approximately 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan heavy crude. When asked about the fate of the confiscated oil, President Donald Trump said, “We keep it, I guess,” failing to portray this theft as if it were a rightful enforcement of US sanctions.

The Venezuelan government issued a formal statement accusing the US of “blatant theft” and denouncing it as “an act of international piracy” before international bodies. Iran followed suit, whose embassy in Caracas declared the seizure a “grave violation of international laws and norms.” The action is perceived not merely as an economic sanction but as a sovereign violation, an act of force on the high seas that breaks established norms of maritime jurisdiction. As the video showing the US forces board the vessel are described by observers as piracy making the US seem not as a law enforcer but as an outlaw state itself, operating outside the very international order it claims to uphold.

Making an Example Out of Venezuela
This seizure represents the first direct interception of a Venezuelan oil cargo since comprehensive US sanctions were imposed in 2019, signaling a decisive shift in strategy. Prior efforts focused on financial and secondary sanctions, attempting to dissuade international buyers and shipping insurers from dealing with Venezuelan petroleum. By moving to physically seize cargo, the US is directly attacking the Venezuelan financial lifeline of oil revenue. The targeted tanker, the Skipper, was accused by the US as being part of a “shadow fleet” of vessels using ownership and tactics like ship-to-ship transfers to evade sanctions.

The legal justification for the seizure rests on US sanctions law and the tanker’s alleged involvement in sanctioned Iranian oil trading under its previous name, Adisa. Experts warn it blurs the line between law enforcement and acts of war, potentially inviting retaliatory measures or encouraging other nations to adopt similar tactics to enforce their own domestic laws internationally. Furthermore, the operation occurred amid a massive US military buildup in the region, which President Trump has previously linked to potential intervention in Venezuela.

Similar Past Operations against Iran
The United States has previously employed the tactic of seizing oil tankers as a key component of its sanctions enforcement against Iran, establishing a legal and operational precedent for recent actions off Venezuela. Notably, in a major 2021 operation, the US Department of Justice seized two tankers carrying Iranian crude oil, directing one to Houston, Texas, where nearly two million barrels of oil were confiscated and later sold for over $110 million. These actions were justified under US domestic laws, specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and anti-terrorism statutes, which courts have used to authorize civil forfeiture proceedings against assets linked to sanctioned entities like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

It is possible the US will use this same legal framework that treats the cargo itself as evidence of a crime against Venezuela, attempting to cripple trade between the Bolivarian country and the global south, allowing for seizure even on the high seas. Unlike the recent operation involving US military personnel fast-roping onto a vessel near Venezuela, seizures from Iranian-affiliated tankers have often involved more complex legal maneuvers, such as luring ships to friendly ports or leveraging international partnerships to detain vessels. For instance, in 2023, the US worked with authorities in Greece to detain the Russian-flagged Pegas, which was carrying Iranian oil, though it was later released after legal challenges.

The primary effect is psychological pressure against Venezuela, creating market uncertainty and impacting immediate supply availability. Venezuela, which already discounts its crude to compete with sanctioned oil from Russia and Iran, now faces an additional risk of shipment interception. This could further limit its export capacity, tighten global supply of its heavy crude grade, and affect specialized refineries dependent on it.

A New and Perilous Phase of Piracy
The seizure of the Skipper marks the opening of a new and perilous chapter in the US pressure campaign against Venezuela. It moves the conflict from the realms of economic and financial sabotage into the physical domain, employing military assets to enforce economic policy of piracy. For the international community, the incident poses urgent questions about the limits of unilateral power and the future of freedom of navigation.

Miguel Santos García is a Puerto Rican writer and political analyst who mainly writes about the geopolitics of neocolonial conflicts and Hybrid Wars within the 4th Industrial Revolution, the ongoing New Cold War and the transition towards multipolarity.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Genocide Watch

20 Dec 2025 – Twelve million people, mostly Uyghur Muslims, live in Xinjiang, China, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to assimilate Uyghurs, replacing their culture with Han Chinese language and culture. Uyghur social and political institutions are being destroyed and replaced by CCP communism.

Since the 1990s, millions of Han Chinese have been resettled in Xinjiang under the “Big Development of the Northwest Plan.” The CCP has detained millions of Uyghurs in “reeducation” camps, forcibly placing Han Chinese monitors in Uyghur homes to suppress independence movements. Officials justify these policies as “counterterrorism” measures.

In 1997, protests erupted after China banned Uyghur traditional celebrations, leading to a CCP crackdown that killed over 200 people and resulted in mass arrests. Tensions escalated in the 2009 Urumqi riots, ethnic clashes that left 200 dead.

Xinjiang is heavily surveilled, with widespread biometric data collection and AI-driven monitoring. “Convenience police stations” enforce CCP control, particularly targeting Uyghurs at checkpoints. Advanced Surveillance technologies, including AI monitoring and biometric data collection, track and control Uyghurs’ movements.

Since 2017, 800,000 to 2 million Uyghurs have been detained in mass detention centers where they undergo forced CCP indoctrination, physical abuse, sexual violence, and cultural erasure. The Uyghur language is banned in these “reeducation camps.” During indoctrination, detainees are coerced into abandoning Islam. The CCP has demolished many Uyghur mosques, severely restricting Uyghur religious freedom.

The Chinese government continues its campaign of Mass Detention in Reeducation Camps, where Uyghur Muslims face Forced Assimilation and Cultural Genocide through CCP indoctrination and Uyghur language bans.

After “reeducation,” Uyghurs are subjected to forced labor in cotton fields and factories, amounting to slavery. Forced Labor in Han Chinese or CCP owned factories is Chinese state policy. Global scrutiny of supply chains linked to Xinjiang factories resulted in Volkswagen’s exit from Urumqi.

Family planning policies restrict Uyghur births, violating Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention. Researcher Adrian Zenz found that Uyghur population growth dropped 84% from 2015 to 2018. Forced Sterilization, forced abortions, and restrictive birth control policies suppress Uyghur population growth. They violate Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention. This persecution is also a Crime against Humanity.

Uyghur children are removed from their homes and placed in Mandarin-only schools. Removal of children is genocide, violating Article 2(e) of the Genocide Convention.

Genocide Watch considers the CCP’s repression of freedom of movement and religion, and its Orwellian surveillance of Uyghurs as Stage 3: Discrimination. The CCP’s torture and imprisonment of Uyghurs into “re-education camps” is Stage 8: Persecution. Mass rape of women inside and outside these camps and CCP removal of Uyghur children is Stage 9: Extermination, violation of the Genocide Convention. The CCP’s denial of its acts of genocide are Stage 10: Denial. The Uyghur genocide is aided and abetted by “genocide scholar” deniers like William Schabas and Jeffrey Sachs.

Genocide Watch recommends:

• The US and other members of the UN should prohibit imports of goods produced by Uyghur forced labor.
• The US and other members of the UN should implement stricter supply chain tracking to ensure companies do not source materials from Uyghur forced labor.
• UN members should ensure that Uyghurs have access to humanitarian protection claims.
• UN members should provide support for Uyghur communities abroad, Uyghur refugees, and asylum seekers, including legal aid and resettlement programs.
• The US should forbid investments in Chinese companies that exploit Uyghur forced labor.
• The US and EU should bar exports of technology (AI, facial recognition) used in the Uyghur genocide.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Jordan Blum

14 Dec 2025 – The U.S. seizure of a massive oil tanker offshore of Venezuela this week represented a brazen escalation of the Trump administration’s repeated military incursions in the area. It’s also a broader sign of the increasing involvement of the U.S. in South America’s petroleum politics.

The U.S. paces the world in oil and gas production, but President Trump’s new national security strategy—the so-called “Trump corollary”—emphasizes greater U.S. control of the Western Hemisphere, including much more influence over South America, which increasingly leads the globe in new oil output growth. Almost everything the Trump administration is doing in South America—from pressuring Venezuela to a $20 billion Argentina bailout to defending Guyana’s territorial waters—is at least related to the black gold that is crude oil.

While the White House emphasizes national security concerns over drug trafficking and immigration as it bombs boats and kills more than 80 people thus far in repeated, legally questionable actions, Venezuela is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Regime change and new laws opening Venezuelan oil to more U.S. and foreign investment could lead to much greater oil flows.

And, remember, Trump is a big fan of controlling oil volumes in order to lower prices at the pump—a major political bellwether for him—without having to lean on OPEC.

“In the next five years, we’re going to see a lot more oil coming from South America,” said Jorge León, head of geopolitical analysis for the Rystad Energy research firm. “I think there is going to be a growing U.S. influence in the region to attract foreign and American companies, sort of like what happened in the 1980s when there were a lot of U.S. players in South America. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see a new wave of companies flying back there to unlock this massive oil potential.”

If Trump has his way and forces Maduro out, the U.S. also could see a lot more investment in Venezuelan oil, which is a heavier crude grade favored by American oil refineries even over U.S. crude, León told Fortune. That’s a big “if,” however. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will likely resist tooth and nail. He has already insisted his nation won’t become a U.S. “oil colony” and accused Trump of piracy.

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said oil is a “piece of the puzzle” in all of Trump’s interventions in Venezuela and the broader continent, but not necessarily the key motivating factor.

“Trump does have the view that he can control the mineral reserves,” Monaldi said.

“It seems part of [Trump’s] notion for some sort of new Monroe Doctrine. Some call it the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine,” Monaldi said. “He basically wants the U.S to have a predominant role in the region in terms of raw materials and to limit the role of geopolitical rivals, like China, which is challenging.”

The domestic U.S. oil business is maturing and showing signs of plateauing, Monaldi said, and the U.S. wants more control of global petroleum outside of the Middle East and Russia. Companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron already are helping to grow South American production at a time when the continent’s politics are leaning more to the right—coincidentally or not.

“Bottom line, the region could become much more aligned with President Trump,” Monaldi said. “Not so long ago, the region was absolutely ruled by the left or the hard left, which was super anti-American.”

Intense Venezuela focus
Home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves but less than 1% of global oil production, Venezuela is arguably the planet’s biggest underachiever from a petroleum extraction perspective.

Once a major player churning out nearly 4 million barrels of oil daily, Venezuela’s volumes have plunged from 3.2 million barrels daily in 2000 down to about 960,000 barrels today under the authoritarian socialist regimes of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, from a combination of mismanagement, underinvestment, and escalating U.S. sanctions.

Outside of arguably Iran, no country gets under Trump’s skin more than Venezuela in either of Trump’s presidential terms thus far. Repeated sanctions and threats have failed to force Maduro out of office thus far.

And, while the Trump administration may truly be most focused on drugs and immigration, Monaldi said, Venezuela and its rich Orinoco Oil Belt represent a key geopolitical tool.

“Venezuela looks like a very important piece of the puzzle. It’s removed from the geopolitical areas that are problematic [in the Eastern Hemisphere],” Monaldi said. “The oil reserves are there, and the geological risks are pretty low. The problems in Venezuela are above ground.

“Venezuela could be producing four times or even five times as much oil—at least technically. This requires tens of billions of dollars in investments.”

Starting this fall, the U.S. has launched more than 20 known strikes against boats in the Venezuelan area, killing more than 80 people. The administration insists, without providing evidence, that the boats are trafficking drugs. Trump has built up a military force in the region, sending the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to the Caribbean with a host of fighter jets and guided-missile destroyers.

On December 10, in another escalation, the U.S. seized the sanctioned oil tanker Skipper for allegedly making repeated, illegal shipments of Venezuelan and Iranian oil. The tanker was placed under U.S. sanctions under a different name in 2022 for its shipments of Iranian crude. The administration is threatening to seize more tankers going forward, potentially further crippling the Venezuelan economy.

In a new Politico interview, Trump said Maduro’s “days are numbered,” but he declined to comment on a potential land invasion of Venezuela.

When asked about the involvement of oil, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly would only say in a statement that Trump is focused on stopping the “narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison” to the U.S. “The President will continue to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country,” she added.

The corporate role
In July, Trump granted Chevron a new, restricted license to produce oil in Venezuela. As the only U.S. oil producer in the country—Chevron has worked in Venezuela for a century—Chevron produces about 25% of Venezuela’s crude with state oil company PDVSA. However, Venezuela ships about 80% of its oil to China under deep discounts because of U.S. sanctions.

In a Washington, D.C. conference in November, Chevron Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth said the geopolitical circumstances are difficult, but Venezuela’s potential is worth the effort. “The kinds of swings that you see in places like Venezuela are challenging. But we play a long game. Venezuela is blessed with a lot of geologic resource and bounty. And we are committed to the people of the country and would like to be there as part of rebuilding Venezuela’s economy in time when circumstances change.”

In a statement, Chevron spokesman Bill Turenne added that its Venezuela “presence continues to be a stabilizing force for the local economy, the region, and U.S. energy security.”

Matt Reed, vice president of the geopolitical and energy consultancy Foreign Reports, said much of the focus on Venezuelan oil involves hawkish Republican politicians and Maduro’s opponents in Venezuela arguing for even greater U.S. military intervention.

“They are trying to convince Trump to jump in with both feet and get rid of Maduro, making the argument there are also economic incentives with oil,” Reed said. “They’re the ones pushing the idea that American companies are going to profit in the long run if they can get access to Venezuelan oil resources.”

Trump certainly wants to get rid of Maduro and unlock Venezuela’s oil potential, Reed said, but—despite his oft-erratic whims—he prefers to do so without a repeat of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

“Getting involved in regime change in Venezuela would probably be the most ambitious military mission he would be involved in, which is why I don’t think he’s going to overcommit,” Reed said of Trump. “I think what he wants to do is tighten the noose and make Maduro untenable—make sure everyone understands that maybe the U.S. and Venezuela can turn the page once he’s out of the picture.”

Jordan Blum is the Energy editor at Fortune, overseeing coverage of a growing global energy sector for oil and gas, transition businesses, renewables, and critical minerals.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Alan MacLeod

15 Dec 2025 – Did your engagement ring help fund a genocide in Gaza? Quite possibly. Despite possessing no mines of their own, Israel is a major player in the world’s diamond business, buying up minerals across Africa and selling them to the West, netting billions in the process. Diamonds are Israel’s most important export, and directly bankroll the country’s ongoing genocide against the people of Gaza. Exploring the dark world of Israeli blood diamonds.

A Gigantic Industry
Any visitor walking through Tel Aviv’s exclusive Ramat Gan district will be struck by its wealth. Skyscrapers are everywhere, and expensive jewelry stores lines the streets. Ramat Gan is the center of the world’s diamond industry, with more than 15,000 people employed by the Israel Diamond Exchange in the business of cutting, polishing, importing, exporting, and marketing the stones.

Israel’s largest export is not tech industry or its food. Diamonds alone account for over 15% of all the country’s exports, with other jewelry also contributing significantly to its economy. Between 2018 and 2023, Israel exported over $60 billion dollars worth of precious stones.

Their number one customer is the United States. Historically, Israel has accounted for between one third and one half of all the diamonds sold across America, a growing market already worth $20 billion per year.

Genocide Stones
Unlike gold, diamonds are rarely hallmarked, meaning that few American brides know that their engagement and wedding rings were crafted and polished in Israel. Even fewer are aware that their purchase directly funds the slaughter in Gaza and Israel’s ongoing seizure of land in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria.

“Overall, the Israeli diamond industry contributes about $1 billion annually to the Israeli military and security industries … every time somebody buys a diamond that was exported from Israel, some of that money ends up in the Israeli military,” Israeli economist, Shir Hever, testified at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in 2010.

Perhaps the key figure in the Israeli diamond industry is business magnate, Beny Steinmetz. Considered by many to be Israel’s richest man, the 69-year-old founder of Steinmetz Diamond Group first entered the industry in 1988, purchasing a production factory in Apartheid South Africa.

Through his charitable foundation, Steinmetz has poured money into the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), including “adopting” a unit of the Givati Brigade, buying equipment for them. During Operation Cast Lead in 2009, the brigade carried out a massacre, forcing dozens of Palestinian civilians into a house in Gaza, bombed the house, and prevented ambulances from approaching. Rescue workers who eventually found their bodies also reported seeing the words “The only good Arab is a dead Arab” daubed in Hebrew on the remains of the building.

More recently, the Givati Brigade has been filmed setting fire to Palestinian food supplies, and a Gaza sewage plant, as well as demolishing more homes.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has destroyed 92% of the schools and residential buildings of Gaza, shot around 300 journalists, and killed at least 20,000 children. UNICEF estimates that 3,000 to 4,000 children in Gaza have lost one or more limbs. In addition to its violence in Palestine, Israel has invaded and occupied Lebanon and Syria, and bombed Iran, Tunisia, Yemen, and Qatar.

The US Pays in Dollars, Africa Pays in Blood
Israel’s appetite for diamonds is directly fueling civil war and bloodshed across Africa, where it supplies military hardware with governments, warlords, and local armed groups in exchange for access to the continent’s mineral wealth. Israel-based International Diamond Industries (IDI), for example, secured a monopoly on diamond production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in a deal that, according to a United Nations panel, included covert weapons transfers and the training of Congolese security forces by IDF commanders. The deal was fantastically lucrative for IDI, who paid only $20 million for a monopoly generating $600 million per year.

Meanwhile, in 2002 in war-ravaged Sierra Leone, for just $1.2 million in cash, Steinmetz himself managed to acquire half of the Koidu Ltd., a company that accounted for 90% of the country’s diamonds. In 2011, Koidu produced a reported $200 million worth of diamonds.

Why authorities would agree to such ludicrously low purchase prices might be explained by a 2021 ruling by a Swiss court, that found Steinmetz guilty of paying $8.5 million in bribes to the wife of the president of Guinea. These bribes, the court ruled, secured him the rights to lucrative iron ore concessions in the country’s Simandou region. Steinmetz was sentenced to five years in prison. The Israeli billionaire is currently facing similarly grave corruption charges in Romania.

The diamond rush in D.R. Congo, Sierra Leone and other African nations has resulted in civil war, human trafficking, forced child labor, and other serious human rights violations by groups intent on securing a slice of the diamond industry for themselves. But they are relatively small players in comparison to the Israelis.

“Conflict Free” Minerals
Much of the brutal reality of the gemstone industry is now well-known in popular culture, thanks in part to the 2006 Leonardo DiCaprio movie, “Blood Diamond,” set in Sierra Leone. In response to the growing public outcry over their ethics, the industry established the World Diamond Council, which helped create the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a system designed to prevent so-called “conflict diamonds” from entering the world market.

From a marketing perspective, the Kimberley Process was a great success, providing consumers with (an illusion of) peace of mind, which helped worldwide diamond sales to increase. Yet there are a number of key flaws with the system. Chief among these is that the process’ certification of conflict free minerals applies only to the source of the diamonds, leaving Israel free to import billions of dollars’ worth of diamonds into a country bombing seven of its neighbors, process, cut and polish them, and continue to sell their products as “conflict free.” All this while carrying out against Palestine what the United Nations has consistently termed a “genocide.”

Moreover, in 2009, the U.N. accused Israel of surreptitiously importing illegal blood diamonds from the Ivory Coast.

That, in a nutshell, is how the global industry works. Sixteen of the twenty largest diamond-producing countries are poor African nations, who see limited economic benefit from them. Meanwhile, none of the top five global exporters of diamonds – the United States, India, Hong Kong, Belgium, and Israel – actually produce the gems in any discernible quantities, a reflection of the unequal world we live in.

Worthless Rocks and Marketing Campaigns
The diamond industry sustains itself through a number of myths, the first of which is that they are rare minerals. They are not. In the late 19th century, massive diamond deposits were found in South Africa, flooding the global market. However, the businessmen operating the mines quickly realized that only by maintaining strict control over the supply of the commodity could high prices be maintained. Today, well over 100 million carats of diamonds are unearthed annually, enough to produce hundreds of millions of pendants, rings, and earrings.

Nor are diamonds inherently precious. Thanks to their extreme hardness, they are useful to toolmakers producing saw blades and drill bits. Beyond this, however, their value is limited. And, contrary to popular belief, they are not intrinsically connected to courtship, marriage, or anniversaries in Western culture. In fact, the link in popular culture between diamonds and love is the result of a marketing campaign. The phrase “diamonds are forever” is, in reality, a marketing catchphrase devised by Madison Avenue executives in 1947. Professor Sut Jhally, producer of the documentary, “The Diamond Empire,” describes “diamonds are forever” as “perhaps the most famous advertising slogan ever invented.” “That slogan, that idea that comes out of Madison Avenue, now defines the way that we think about rituals that define our most personal activities, marriage, and courtship,” he added.

The success of this campaign was little short of astonishing. In 1940, only 10% of American brides received diamond rings. By 1990, that number had risen to 90%. Wholesale diamond sales in the U.S. rose from $23 million in 1939 to $2.1 billion in 1979 – a 9000% increase in 40 years. Some gambits, such as the attempt to market diamond rings to men, were not as successful.

Flush with success, the diamond industry tried the same product placement and advertising strategies that worked in the U.S. across Asia, adding in a flavor of Western values and allure to their marketing. In Japan, the trick worked. In 1967, fewer than 5% of engaged Japanese women received a diamond ring. But by 1981, it had ballooned to 60%.

The diamond industry also ran into another problem: if their product was so expensive, how could they sell it to a mass market? To solve this, they again turned to Madison Avenue, who suggested telling men to spend 2–3 months of salary on an engagement ring. By 2014, the average engagement ring in the U.S. cost a hefty $4,000, according to The New York Times. “It was a brilliant strategy,” Jhally said. “They managed to convince some men to go into debt to buy these worthless things that they have billions of sitting in warehouses.”

In recent years, the global economic downturn has meant that smaller, cheaper diamonds are more in demand. These small stones are usually cut in India. Children, who possess sharper eyes and smaller and more dextrous fingers than adults, are used to cut and polish these tiny diamonds, adding a new layer of moral ambiguity to the industry.

An Industry in Crisis
Diamond sales are currently in crisis. 2024 saw a 23% drop in revenue across the sector, as younger consumers increasingly see diamonds as overpriced rocks hewn from the ground by child slaves in a war zone, and inauthentic tokens of their love.

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement has also drawn attention to the fact that diamond sales are irrevocably linked to the carnage in Gaza. As the Palestinian BDS National Committee write:

Revenue from the diamond industry helps fund Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, its brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people and its international network of saboteurs, spies, and assassins.”

A less political but perhaps more existential threat comes in the form of lab-grown diamonds, which are priced at around only one-tenth the price of traditionally-sourced stones. Lab-grown diamonds (around half of which come from China) now account for around 20% of total sales, and are projected to both increase their market share and reduce in price. Three-quarters of Americans would be happy to receive a lab-grown diamond engagement ring, according to a 2025 poll, which noted that the public consider them to be better value-for-money, and a more ethical choice.

Another serious and unforeseen blow to Israeli diamond merchants has been the new Trump-era global tariff regime. Currently, the United States imposes a 15% tax on all Israeli diamonds. In September, the European Union managed to negotiate a diamond exemption to their 15% tariff, meaning that competitors such as Belgium now hold a serious advantage over Israel in the crucial U.S. market.

As a result, Israel Diamond Exchange president, Nissim Zuaretz, stated that his industry faces an “existential threat”. “We are slipping backward,” he warned, adding:

My message to the government and the public is clear: it’s now or never… We have a golden opportunity to restore Israel to the center of the global diamond industry, but the window is closing fast. Every day without government action means another diamond dealer lost, another family without income, another piece of our national heritage gone.”

However, if the Israeli government does indeed step in to safeguard its national industry and take a more interventionist approach, it will only further underscore the fact that the purchase of diamonds is inherently funding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, supercharging blood diamonds into genocide diamonds.

Alan MacLeod is an academic, journalist, and senior staff writer for MintPress News.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Dave DeCamp

17 Dec 2025 – The House on Wednesday voted down a War Powers Resolution meant to block President Trump from launching a war with Venezuela without congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The bill failed in a vote of 211-213, with nine representatives not voting. Just three Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill: Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE). One Democrat, Henry Cuellar (TX), voted against the legislation.

The legislation would have directed the president to remove “United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Before the Venezuela bill, another War Powers Resolution aimed at stopping President Trump’s bombing campaign against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific Ocean also failed. That bill failed in a vote of 210-216, with two Republicans (Massie and Bacon) voting in favor and two Democrats (Ceullar and Vicente Gonzalez (TX) voting against.

The votes came a day after President Trump declared a “complete and total blockade” on “sanctioned” tankers going into and leaving Venezuela, an action that’s widely considered an act of war under international law. President Trump and his top officials have also been clear that their goal is regime change.

“Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked on the House floor before the vote.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution,” Massie continued. “And yet today, here we aren’t even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we’re voting on is a War Powers Resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war.”

Several polls in recent months have found that the idea of the US going to war with Venezuela is extremely unpopular among Americans.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of antiwar.com.

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Julian Assange

Submitted to:

• Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Swedish Economic Crime Authority), Hantverkargatan 15, 112 21 Stockholm.
• Krigsbrottsenheten (Swedish War Crimes Unit), Kungsholmsgatan 43, 106 75 Stockholm.

17 December 2025

INTRODUCTION

Alfred Nobel’s endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war. Nor can it be used as a tool in foreign military intervention. Venezuela, whatever the status of its political system, is no exception.

Nobel’s will of 27 November 1895 is binding under Swedish law. It clearly states that each year the peace prize monies shall go to the person who during the proceeding year “. . . conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. . . ” by doing “. . . the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”1

Any disbursement contradicting this mandate constitutes misappropriation from the endowment. The pending transfer of 11 million SEK ($1.18 million USD) and existing 10 December 2025 handover of the prize medal to María Corina Machado, in violation of this disbursement restriction, appear to be acts of serious criminality.

The political decision of the Norwegian selection committee does not suspend the fiduciary duty of Swedish funds administrators. Where a decision by the selection committee is in flagrant conflict with the explicit peace purpose of the will, or where there is evidence that the awardee will use or is using the prize to promote or facilitate the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, administrators must resolve the conflict in favor of the will. They must safeguard the endowment by declining to disburse funds. The Norwegian committee’s selection does not grant them criminal immunity.

Should the selection committee have chosen Benjamin Netanyahu, Ahmed Chalabi, or the committee chair’s four-year-old grandchild, the explicit peace mandate in Nobel’s will would similarly not have been fulfilled, and disbursement of funds would be misappropriation. Funds administrators have a fiduciary duty to make themselves aware of potential misappropriation.

The huge buildup of U.S. military forces off the coast of Venezuela, starting in August and now numbering over 15,000 personnel,37 has already committed undeniable war crimes, including the lethal targeting of civilian boats and survivors at sea, which has killed at least 95 people.29 The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights labeled these U.S. coastal strikes against civilian boats “extrajudicial executions.”2 It was the principal architect of this aggression, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who nominated María Corina Machado for the peace prize.42

There are ample public statements, accessible by the suspects, showing that the U.S. government and María Corina Machado have exploited the authority of the prize to provide them with a casus moralis for war with the object of installing her by force in order to plunder $1.7 trillion in Venezuelan oil and other resources.

Using her elevated position as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado may well have tipped the balance in favour of war.

There is a real risk that funds derived from Nobel’s endowment have been or will be intentionally or negligently diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

The failure of the suspected funds administrators to cease disbursements, in light of the quality and volume of evidence available to them, indicates ongoing criminal intent (see section V).

These disbursements aid a conspiracy to murder civilians, to violate national sovereignty using military force (and the CIA, authorized 22 August 2025),3 and to enact resource theft (Machado’s $1.7 trillion sell-off to U.S. firms).4 They flagrantly violate Nobel’s will and clearly cross the threshold into criminality, including gross misappropriation, aiding international crimes (see section III), and conspiracy. The disbursement of the prize funds has already been used to whitewash war crimes and incite aggression that risks tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees.5

This complaint seeks the immediate freezing of all remaining funds and a full criminal investigation lest the Nobel Peace Prize be permanently converted from an instrument of peace into an instrument of war.

This assessment is shared by 21 Norwegian peace organisations who boycotted the ceremony: “Machado is the opposite of a peace laureate.”16

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel stated: “Giving the prize to someone who calls for foreign invasion is a mockery of Alfred Nobel’s will.”6

I. COMPLAINANT

Julian Assange (3 July 1971).

c/o Jennifer Robinson, Doughty Street Chambers, 53–54 Doughty Street, London, WC1N 2LS, United Kingdom.

[redaction]

II. ACCUSED NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONS

The suspects are those involved in the operational disbursement of funds derived from the endowment and those who hold a fiduciary duty to protect it from misappropriation. According to public records, this includes the Nobel Foundation (Nobelstiftelsen, reg. no. 802002-4462) and its Board of Directors (Styrelsen):

1. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, Chair of the Board of the Nobel Foundation
2. Hanna Stjärne, Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation
3. Emma Bergström, Chief Financial Officer, Nobel Foundation
4. Ulrika Bergman, Chief Investment Officer, Nobel Foundation
5. Tomas Nicolin, Member of the Nobel Foundation Investment Committee and senior executive, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB)

As well as the Nobel trustees (Fullmäktige, as of 25 April 2024):

6. Birgitta Henriques Normark
7. Martin Jakobsson
8. Kerstin Sahlin
9. Helena Edlund
10. Olof Ramström
11. Eva Lindroth
12. Olle Kämpe
13. Nils-Göran Larsson
14. Gunilla Karlsson Hedestam
15. Ellen Mattson
16. Anne Swärd
17. Ingrid Carlberg
18. Kristin Clemet
19. Jørgen Watne Frydnes
20. Asle Toje

As well as their deputies:

21. Torleif Härd
22. Carl Folke
23. Magnus Berggren
24. Richard Brenner
25. Sten Linnarsson
26. Juleen Zierath
27. Anders Olsson
28. Eric Runesson
29. Anne Enger
30. Gry Larsen

III. LEGAL BASIS UNDER SWEDISH LAW

• Brottsbalken (BrB) Chapter 10 § 1, 2 and 3: förskingring and grov förskingring (breach of trust, misappropriation and gross misappropriation)⁷
• BrB Chapter 9 1: stämpling till brott (conspiracy to commit indictable offence)⁹
• Lag (2014:406) 16: brott mot mänskligheten och krigsförbrytelser (facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity) including of:
  • 2 crimes against humanity: killing;
  • 3 killing protected persons: shipwrecked survivors, civilians;
  • 4 war crimes;
  • 11 gross (aggravated) war crimes including of § 11a the crime of aggression;
  • 15 attempted war crimes; § 16 incitement, conspiracy, and preparation for these crimes.¹¹
• Sweden’s obligations under Article 25(3)(c) Rome Statute (facilitation of crimes within ICC jurisdiction)¹²

These provisions apply as the Nobel Foundation is a Swedish entity managing testamentary assets, and disbursements occur under Swedish jurisdiction. Criminal intent (uppsåt) is established by continued payments despite public knowledge of violations, including Machado’s support for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and involvement in U.S. efforts to effect regime change and resource theft in Venezuela by installing the awardee through force.

IV.  THE 2025 PEACE PRIZE DISBURSEMENTS

On 10 October 2025, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced María Corina Machado as the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.¹³ Since then, the Nobel Foundation and related entities have disbursed or caused to be disbursed (estimated based on 2023-2024 annual reports):

• SEK 135,000 for the gold bullion value of the medal at current prices (18 karat x 140g)
• SEK 500,000 for the Oslo announcement press conference (10 October 2025)¹⁴
• SEK 1,794,000 for private jets, security, accommodation, medal production, and related ceremonial costs (October-December 2025)¹⁴

A further 11 million SEK of restricted Nobel funds (the monetary award) faces imminent misappropriation and wire transfer via Swedish bank SEB to Machado and her agents.¹⁵

V. MACHADO’S INCITEMENTS TO WAR MAKE HER INELIGIBLE

Machado dedicated the Peace Prize to U.S. President Trump (11 October 2025). Machado’s endorsement of military means, including violations of the Rome Statute, in relation to her own country and in others, is explicit. The following statements by Machado are listed in reverse chronological order:

• 15 December 2025, Machado on CBS Face the Nation: “I say this from Oslo right now, I have dedicated this award to [President Trump] because I think that he finally has put Venezuela in where it should be, in terms of a priority for the United States national security.”³⁰
• 30 October 2025, Bloomberg interview: “Military escalation may be the only way. . . the United States may need to intervene directly.”¹⁷
• 17 October 2025, call to Benjamin Netanyahu on Israel’s conduct in Gaza: “The Nobel Peace Prize laureate told the Prime Minister that she greatly appreciates his decisions and resolute actions in the course of the war.”¹⁸
• October 2025, Fox News interview on S. military strikes on civilian vessels: “justified.”¹⁹
• 5 October 2025, interview in The Sunday Times on the U.S. military buildup and extra-judicial assassination strikes against civilian boats: Trump’s strikes are “visionary”. “I totally support his ”²⁰
• February 2025, interview with Donald Trump : “We’re going to kick the government out of the oil sector . . . American companies are going to make a lot of money . . . forget Saudi Arabia, we have more oil.”²¹
• 9 February 2019, interview with EL PAÍS: Maduro will only leave “in the face of a real threat from a more powerful state.”²²
• 25 February 2014, testimony before S. Congress: “The only path left is the use of force.”²³

VI. THE MILITARY BUILDUP FURTHERED BY MACHADO’S STATEMENTS

The Nobel Peace Prize decision and ceremony have occurred amidst a shift in the U.S. administration to “maximum lethality, not tepid legality” and “going on the offence”, in the words of Trump’s Secretary for War, Peter Hegseth.³¹

In fact, the announcement of Machado’s selection, and the Nobel Prize award ceremony, have occurred during the largest U.S. pre-invasion buildup since the Iraq war:

In early September 2025, Reuters reported that seven US war ships and one nuclear powered fast-attack submarine, including more than 4,500 sailors and marines, had been deployed in the Southern Caribbean.³²

By 15 October troops had swelled to 10,000. Simultaneously, it was reported that President Trump had authorised covert CIA action in Venezuela.³³

Around the same time, the Head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in charge of Latin America, Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, was pressured into resigning by Secretary of War Hegseth after raising “concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.”³⁴

By 21 November 2025 the Trump administration had classified elements of the Venezuelan military as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO). U.S. Secretary of War Hegseth told OAN that the FTO classification “brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States.”³⁵

By the time of the Nobel ceremony, U.S. military presence around Venezuela had grown into “the largest U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962”, “a show of force that has included a series of heavy bomber aircraft flying along Venezuela’s coast”, and three amphibious ships which have “essentially zero capability” against drug trafficking but are “ideal for landing troops ashore”. The same article reports that U.S. troops have been “carrying out mock landing operations” on nearby Puerto Rico’s beaches.³⁶

Two days after the Nobel ceremony, President Trump announced that the United States air strikes would be “starting by land… that’s going to start happening.”³⁸ On the 15th of December, President Trump signed an Executive Order classifying illicit Fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

U.S. military personnel recently deployed near Venezuela are now estimated to number more than 15,000, including in Puerto Rico, Guyana, El Salvador, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Trinidad and Tobago.³⁷ The deployment includes the “largest and most advanced” aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, which measures more than 330 meters long.

Throughout this massive military buildup, and as all-out war hangs in the balance, Machado has continued to incite the Trump Administration to pursue its escalatory path.³⁹

By contrast, in October UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and UN human rights chief Volker Turk (who would, unlike Machado, have met Nobel’s prize criteria) called on the U.S. to “halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them”, finding that the attacks occurred “in circumstances that find no justification in international law.”⁴⁰

Then in December, Guterres called on “all actors to refrain from actions that could further escalate bilateral tensions and destabilize Venezuela and the region.”⁴¹

Yet it is into this dangerous situation that Machado has incited and defended the Trump administration’s use of lethal military force and preparation for war. Using her elevated position as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado may well have tipped the balance in favour of war—facilitated by the names suspects.

Beyond this grotesque reality, there are the concrete legal obligations of the individuals tasked with ensuring the fulfilment of the intended purpose of Alfred Nobel’s will, that is, to end wars and prevent violations of the Rome Statute, and not to enable them.

VII. THE FOUNDATION’S LEGAL POWER AND DUTY TO INTERVENE

The Foundation holds supervisory authority over the prizes and their disbursements. In 2018, amid the Swedish Academy’s scandal over Jean-Claude Arnault, Executive Director Lars Heikensten withheld the Literature Prize.^24 25 Failure to intervene here, despite U.S. war crimes off the Venezuelan coast and Machado’s key role in furthering aggression, breaches trust (BrB 10).

VIII. EXPERT AND INSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION

• Joint statement of 21 Norwegian peace organisations, 9 December 2025: “Machado is the opposite of a peace laureate.”¹⁶
• Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (1980 Laureate), 11 October 2025: “Giving the prize to someone who calls for foreign invasion is a mockery of Alfred Nobel’s will.”⁶
• CAIR, 11 October 2025: “Her open alliance with Likud and support for the Gaza war make this award unconscionable.”²⁶
• PRIO, 7 November 2025: Machado “has called for military intervention in ”²⁷
• David Smilde (Tulane), November 2025: Strikes as “performance as strategy” for regime change, not drugs.²⁸

IX. REQUESTED MEASURES

1. Immediate freezing of the pending SEK 11,000,000 monetary prize transfer and any remaining related budget and secure return of the medal.
2. Investigation of the named persons and Foundation officers and associated entities for breach of trust, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and conspiracy.
3. Seizure of board minutes, emails, group chats, financial
4. Interrogation of Widding, Stjärne and other
5. ICC referral (Rome Statute 25(3)(c)).

Signed [redacted] Julian Assange.

Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks. His most recent book is The WikiLeaks Files (Verso).

22 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Michel Chossudovsky & Drago Bosnić

29 Nov 2025

Donald Trump is intent upon waging war on Venezuela  for allegedly supporting the trade in narcotics. Nonsense. The unspoken military agenda is that Venezuela is the World’s Number One Oil and Gas Economy. “And we want the Oil”… 

There is another unspoken U.S. military agenda:  The protection of the multibillion dollar illegal trade in narcotics. (Continue reading after video below.)

[https://rumble.com/v72dsuu-war-oil-and-narcotics-michel-chossudovsky-and-drago-bosni.html]

Narcotics: Two Major Geograhical Poles

Peru, Bolivia and Colombia are the major producers Worldwide of cocaine.

Afghanistan is the “Number One” Worldwide opium producer: illegal heroin, morphine, and non-pharmaceutical grade opioids.

In the immediate wake of 9/11, US-NATO waged an all out invasion of Afghanistan, which was casually accused by the Bush Adminstration of having attacked America on September 11, 2001

In the year 2000, the Afghan Taliban Government’ with the support of the United Nations, launched an initiative to ban the production of opium coupled with a program of crop substitution in favor of grain.

One of the objectives of the US-NATO led War against Afganistan? Was is intent to restore and protect the multi-billion trade in opium which had collapsed (following the decision of the Afghan government) by more than 90% in 2001? (see graph below).

15 December 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

It is an established fact that human rights are being violated on a daily basis across every part of Jammu and Kashmir. Multiple international human rights organizations and United Nations Special Rapporteurs have documented the absence of meaningful freedom of expression in Jammu and Kashmir. Independent civil society findings indicate widespread censorship, intimidation, arbitrary detention, and harassment of journalists, civil society members, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens. Speaking openly about developments in the region carries a high risk of detention under laws such as the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Local Kashmiris continue to face humiliation, intimidation, and harassment at the hands of Indian military and paramilitary forces. These findings have been independently verified by a well-respected and reputable New Delhi–based organization, the Concerned Citizens Group (CCG). The CCG comprises prominent and distinguished Indian political leaders, retired senior military officials, and representatives of civil society.

The group visited Jammu and Kashmir from October 28 to 31, 2025, and subsequently released its 11th report on the region. Members of the delegation included Yashwant Sinha, former Minister of Finance and Minister of External Affairs of India; Sushobha Barve, Executive Director of the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation; Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) Kapil Kak, a Kashmiri by birth and former Deputy Director at the Centre for Air Power Studies; and Bharat Bhushan, one of India’s most seasoned journalists.

The CCG categorically emphasized that it has no affiliation with the Government of India or with any political party. Its visits to Jammu and Kashmir are entirely self-financed by its members, and it does not solicit contributions from any organization, including NGOs.

The CCG was formed in the aftermath of the large-scale protests that erupted in the Kashmir Valley in 2016. Its stated mission is to act as a bridge between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India. The primary objective of its recent visit was to gauge the public mood at the grassroots level and to convey to the wider Indian public the genuine sentiments of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

According to the report, the activities of the CCG were significantly restricted by the police. The group sought to meet a broad cross-section of society to obtain an objective and accurate assessment of the prevailing situation but was prevented from doing so. In several instances, police reportedly instructed individuals not to appear before the CCG. Despite these constraints, the delegation managed to meet senior leadership of the National Conference, Indian National Congress, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), as well as representatives of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Jammu and Kashmir Students’ Association, and members of the media. Additionally, they met Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a prominent Muslim religious leader, and Sanjay Ticku, a well-known Hindu leader.

The report describes a pervasive atmosphere of “sullen silence” in Kashmir, noting that “alienation has deepened” and that “resentment and anger against the Central government have increased.” It further concludes that the reality on the ground is “far removed from the narrative presented by the Government of India and its media outlets based in Delhi.”

Echoing findings of other international human rights organizations and UN Special Thematic Rapporteurs, the CCG report confirms the near-total absence of freedom of expression in Kashmir. The media remains muzzled, and reporting on alleged atrocities committed by Indian security forces is treated as a criminal offense, often leading to arrest and imprisonment. The report observes:

“There is a pervading fear of voicing any dissenting views or opinions among civil society members. Repression by the police is real and does not spare public intellectuals, media persons, or others.”

One prominent doctor told the delegation, “We have been silenced. But this eerie silence does not mean that all is well.” He warned that a “volcano of suppressed anger and frustration, bordering on hatred, could erupt at any time—it only needs a trigger.”

The report also documents testimonies from academics and civil society representatives who stated that Kashmiri identity is gradually being erased, that ordinary Kashmiris are routinely rebuked and abused, and that economic exploitation has intensified.

A particularly alarming assessment highlights that prolonged uncertainty has pushed many Kashmiri youth toward anger, alienation, substance abuse, and even radicalization—developments that are profoundly destructive to a society historically known for its cultural harmony and serenity. Reflecting this concern, a senior editor warned that “the silence of Kashmiri society is unsustainable. When it breaks, the consequences could be dangerous.” A political leader quoted in the report remarked ominously, “Kuch bada hone wala hai” (“Something big is going to happen”).

The report further documents blatant religious interference. Even Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the Chief Imam of Kashmir, is reportedly denied the freedom to deliver sermons without prior police approval. Authorities allegedly demand advance submission of his khutbas and details of religious ceremonies he intends to officiate—an unmistakable intrusion into religious affairs.

A young professional summarized the prevailing governance structure starkly: “Kashmir is a colony of the Viceroy.” According to this account, the elected government is largely powerless, with no effective control over law and order, while real authority rests with the Lieutenant Governor appointed by New Delhi.

After extensive consultations, the CCG concludes that the people of Kashmir are experiencing a “deep sense of loss—of identity, sub-identity, dignity, and honor.” The report also details ongoing censorship, surveillance, intimidation, and harassment of media organizations. During Operation Sindoor, reporting was entirely state-controlled, severe restrictions were imposed on local journalism, and many reports filed by Kashmiri journalists were allegedly suppressed. Journalists are even denied access to report on legislative assembly proceedings due to the refusal of accreditation passes. Journalists face intimidation, harassment, and removal of reports critical of authorities. Reporting on alleged abuses by security forces is treated as a criminal offense.

In conclusion, these findings directly engage obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and merit continued attention by the UN Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteurs, and relevant UN mechanisms. Therefore, we demand the immediate release of all political prisoners and detainees held for peaceful expression, including Mohammad Yasin Malik, Shabir Ahmed Shah, Masarat Aalam, Khurram Parvez, Dr. Hameed, Fayaz, Aasia Andrabi, Sofi Fehmeeda, Nahida Nasreen and others; restoration of press freedom, freedom of expression in line with international human rights standards., freedom of assembly and association; an end to interference in religious practices and above all; guarantee of the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir so as to live with dignity and honor Key Demands:

Washington, D.C. 18 December 2025

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai is also the Secretary General
World Kashmir Awareness Forum
WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435. Or. gnfai2003@yahoo.com
www.kashmirawareness.org