Archives: Articles

By Medea Benjamin

At this week’s NATO summit in The Hague, leaders announced an alarming new goal: push military spending to 5% of nations’ GDP by 2035. Framed as a response to rising global threats, particularly from Russia and terrorism, the declaration was hailed as a historic step. But in truth, it represents a major step backwards—away from addressing the urgent needs of people and the planet, and toward an arms race that will impoverish societies while enriching weapons contractors.

This outrageous 5% spending target didn’t come out of nowhere—it’s the direct result of years of bullying by Donald Trump. During his first term, Trump repeatedly berated NATO members for not spending enough on their militaries, pressuring them to meet a 2% GDP threshold that was already controversial and so excessive that nine NATO countries still fall below that “target”. 

Now, with Trump back in the White House, NATO leaders are falling in line, setting a staggering 5% target that even the United States—already spending over $1 trillion a year on its military—doesn’t reach. This is not defense; it’s extortion on a global scale, pushed by a president who views diplomacy as a shakedown and war as good business. 

Countries across Europe and North America are already slashing public services and yet they are now expected to funnel even more taxpayer money into war preparation. Currently, no NATO country spends more on the military than on health or education. But if they all hit the new 5% military spending goal, 21 of them would spend more on weapons than on schools.

Spain was one of the few to reject this escalation, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez making clear that his government would not sacrifice pensions and social programs to meet a militarized spending target. Other governments, including Belgium and Slovakia, quietly pushed back too.

Still, NATO leaders pressed on, cheered by Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who fawned over Donald Trump’s demand that Europe boost defense spending. Rutte even referred to Trump as “Daddy,” a comment that—while dismissed as a joke—spoke volumes about NATO’s subservience to U.S. militarism. Under Trump’s influence, the alliance is shedding even the pretense of being a defensive pact, embracing instead the language and logic of perpetual war.

Just before NATO leaders were gathering at the Hague, protesters took to the streets under the banner “No to NATO.” And back in their home countries, civic groups are demanding a redirection of resources toward climate justice, healthcare, and peace. Polls show that majorities in the U.S. oppose increased military spending, but NATO is not accountable to the people. It’s accountable to political elites, arms manufacturers and a Cold War logic that sees every global development through the lens of threat and domination. 

NATO’s expansion, both in terms of war spending and size (it has grown from 12 founding members to 32 countries today) has not brought peace. On the contrary. The alliance’s promise that Ukraine would one day join its ranks was one of the triggers for Russia’s brutal war, and instead of de-escalating, the alliance has doubled down with weapons, not diplomacy. In Gaza, Israel continues its U.S.-backed war with impunity, while NATO nations send more arms and offer no serious push for peace. Now the alliance wants to drain public coffers to sustain these wars indefinitely. NATO is also surrounding its adversaries, particularly Russia, with ever more bases and troops. 

All of this demands a radical rethink. As the world burns—literally—NATO is stocking up on kindling. When healthcare systems are crumbling, schools underfunded, and blazing temperatures making large swaths of the planet uninhabitable, the idea that governments should commit billions more to weapons and war is obscene. Real security doesn’t come from tanks and missiles—it comes from strong communities, global cooperation, and urgent action on our shared crises. 

We need to flip the script. That means cutting military budgets, withdrawing from endless wars, and beginning a serious conversation about dismantling NATO. The alliance, born of the Cold War, is now a stumbling block to global peace and an active participant in war-making. Its latest summit only reinforces that reality. 

This is not just about NATO’s budget—it’s about our future. Every euro or dollar spent on weapons is one not spent on confronting the climate crisis, lifting people out of poverty, or building a peaceful world. For the future of our planet, we must reject NATO and the war economy. 

26 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (Quds News Network)- One-third of families in Gaza are going an entire day without food due to Israel’s ongoing genocide and blockade of aid, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

In a statement, the WFP and its partners said families in Gaza are surviving on thin broths, lentils or rice, one piece of bread or sometimes just a combination of herbs and olive oil known locally as duqqa.

It said that due to the extreme shortage of food, Palestinians routinely risk their lives to get some food.

“The majority of casualties have been shot or shelled trying to reach US-Israeli distribution sites purposefully set up in militarised zones,” said Johnathan Whittall, head of office for the UN humanitarian affairs agency, OCHA, in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The UN confirmed that since 27 May, 549 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and 4,066 injured while trying to access food near the US-backed aid sites.

Other services are being pushed to the brink. As a result of fuel shortages, only 40 percent of drinking water facilities are functional, and 93 percent of households face water insecurity, the statement said.

On March 2, Israel announced the closure of Gaza’s main crossings, cutting off food, medical and humanitarian supplies, worsening a humanitarian crisis for 2.3 million Palestinians, according to reports by human rights organisations who have accused it of using starvation as a weapon of war against Palestinains.

An Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report last month warned that almost a quarter of the civilian population would face catastrophic levels of food insecurity (IPC Phase Five) in the coming months.

After more than 80 days of total blockade, starvation, and growing international outrage, limited aid has allegedly been distributed by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a scandal-plagued organization backed by the US and Israel, created to bypass the UN’s established aid delivery infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

Israel continues to severely restrict the amount of food entering the war-battered Strip with the UN confirming that it is still blocking food from reaching starving Palestinians and only a few trucks of aid reaching Gaza.

Most humanitarian organisations, including the UN, have distanced themselves from GHF, arguing that the group violates humanitarian principles by restricting aid to south and central Gaza, requiring Palestinians to walk long distances to collect aid, and only providing limited aid, among other critiques.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) warned that “weaponizing aid in this manner may constitute crimes against humanity.”

“Every day Palestinians are met with carnage in their attempts to receive supplies from the insufficient amount of aid trickling into Gaza,” MSF said.

The commissioner-general of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), Philippe Lazzarini, condemned the “lethal” US-Israel aid distribution mechanism in Gaza. In a post on X, Lazzarini indicated that Palestinian lives “have been so devalued”.

“It is now the routine to shoot & kill desperate & starving people while they try to collect little food from a company made of mercenaries,” he said.

“Inviting starving people to their death is a war crime. Those responsible of this system must be held accountable. This is a disgrace & a stain on our collective consciousness.”

27 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Kevin Reed

On Thursday, Israeli forces continued their bloody wave of deadly attacks across Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians seeking food and shelter and further tightening the blockade on northern Gaza.

According to Al Jazeera, Gaza authorities reported that at least 71 people were killed on Thursday in Israeli military actions. Local health officials detailed attacks on a school in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood of Gaza City, which left nine dead, and another strike near a tent settlement in Khan Younis that killed nine more.

A drone strike on Deir el-Balah’s market street resulted in nine deaths and multiple injuries. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society also confirmed that three people were killed by Israeli army fire while waiting for humanitarian assistance at a distribution point in the Netzarim Corridor, marking yet another fatal incident at aid sites.

Every day, eyewitness accounts are being given of massacres of Palestinians seeking food at aid distribution sites. Based on Al Jazeera’s reporting since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began operations on May 27, at least 549 Palestinians have been killed near aid sites, with 4,066 injured and another 39 civilians still missing after these attacks.

Reporting on Thursday, the New York Times stated that “hundreds of Palestinians have been killed over the past month near aid hubs set up under a new Israel-backed system, according to Gaza health officials.” The Times described how accessing these heavily fortified distribution centers requires Palestinians to risk their lives.

The United Nations has condemned the situation, with Jens Laerke, a spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, characterizing the new aid distribution centers as “death traps” for those in Gaza. Laerke stated:

Gaza is a hungry place. When we manage to bring anything in, it gets looted by the desperate. That is the level of desperation.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the agency for Palestinian refugees, has also issued condemnations. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA’s commissioner general, called the US- and Israeli-backed GHF “an abomination” and “a death trap costing more lives than it saves.”

Lazzarini said:

Humanitarian principles must be reinstated. The humanitarian community, including UNRWA, has the expertise and must be allowed to do their jobs and provide assistance with respect and dignity.

Israeli officials have remained silent on the specifics of Thursday’s killings. While the IDF has previously claimed it is targeting militants, it does not bother to back up these statements with evidence. As it has done throughout its 20-month genocide, the fascist regime of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to provide any proof that justifies killing unarmed civilians.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Israel further tightened its stranglehold on Gaza by closing crossings into the northern part of the territory. According to a report by the Guardian, Israel halted aid deliveries, claiming to have intelligence that Hamas was seizing supplies intended for civilians.

However, Palestinian leaders and representatives of the Higher Commission for Tribal Affairs in Gaza have denied these allegations, stating that the trucks were being protected as part of an aid security process managed “solely through tribal efforts.” They emphasized that no Palestinian faction, including Hamas, was involved in the process.

A video circulating on Wednesday showed dozens of masked men, some armed with rifles but most carrying sticks, riding on aid trucks. Israeli officials claimed this was proof that militants were stealing food. Hamas itself denied any involvement.

Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a joint statement late on Wednesday ordering the military to present a plan within two days to prevent Hamas from taking control of aid. They cited unspecified information to justify the border closures but again provided no evidence.

The reality is that the closures and the restriction of aid distribution have led to catastrophic levels of hunger and desperation, with the UN and humanitarian organizations warning of imminent famine.

The shutdown of the crossings into the north of Gaza and the use of aid sites as death traps in the south make clear that the scheme of controlling food distribution is a central component of Israel’s ethnic cleansing operation and plan to forcibly drive Palestinians into Egypt.

UN Rights Office spokesman Thameen Al-Kheetan has pointed to the role of the GHF in setting up Palestinians for death. Al-Kheetan stated that the aid group has become a cover for Israel’s military operations, with aid seekers targeted by Israeli forces as they attempt to access food.

This is a clear violation of international law and constitutes a war crime. The result is a situation where “no place is safe in Gaza, and no one is spared,” as Lazzarini stated. The UN has called for humanitarian principles to be reinstated and for aid to be delivered with respect and dignity, but these calls have gone unheeded by Israel and its international backers.

The GHF manages a limited number of aid distribution points, operated by private contractors and under Israeli military control, where repeated massacres have occurred. The World Health Organization and other agencies note a correlation between the locations of these food distribution sites and mass casualty events. These massacres are not accidents of war but part of a broader, systematic policy.

Civilians are forced to walk long, exposed routes to reach the distribution centers, only to be targeted by military vehicles, drones, helicopters and artillery shells. Those who survive the journey often receive only a meager amount of food that is below minimum survival needs.

The repeated killings at aid sites have created an atmosphere of fear and desperation. This has led to widespread terror and the collapse of social cohesion, as people are afraid to leave their homes or seek assistance. The Israeli strategy is not only to starve the population but to break its will to resist and to herd it into tightly controlled zones and out of Gaza entirely.

The death toll has now reached more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children. The US and European imperialist powers have played a central role in facilitating Israel’s actions. The US has provided billions in military aid and diplomatic cover, while European governments have largely followed Washington’s lead. They have continued to trade with Israel and maintain close political and economic ties, despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

There has been mass opposition to these policies among the public. Protests have erupted across Europe, with hundreds of thousands of people marching in cities like London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid to demand an end to the genocide and a halt to arms sales to Israel. These protests reveal the popular outrage against the complicity of these governments in the ongoing slaughter in Gaza.

27 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor expresses its grave alarm over the persistent failure of the European Union, its member states, and the United Kingdom to take effective measures in response to Israel’s atrocities in the Gaza Strip. Despite repeated public statements and internal assessments acknowledging clear violations of international law, these governments continue, through acts and omissions alike, to exercise active and knowing complicity in the unfolding genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. This complicity not only grants Israel licence to pursue its genocidal campaign with impunity, but also renders these states morally and legally responsible for the catastrophic consequences of their breach of international obligations, thereby aiding and abetting international crimes.

Over the past twelve months, the European Union has conducted three formal assessments of Israel’s compliance with the “essential elements” human rights clause contained in Article 2 of the EU–Israel Association Agreement. While the language differs across the reviews, all three reportedly point to serious concerns regarding Israel’s compliance with its human rights obligations under the Agreement.

Despite these findings, the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament have failed to activate any of the corrective mechanisms provided for in the EU–Israel Association Agreement—such as suspending trade preferences, freezing cooperation instruments, or initiating dispute-settlement procedures.

The continued application of this agreement—along with the preferential treatment granted to Israel and the preservation of institutional cooperation in areas such as trade, scientific research, culture, and education, despite well-documented evidence of grave crimes—means that European states are not merely undermining their own legal framework, including the human rights clause enshrined in the agreement. They are going further, providing Israel with political legitimacy and material support that enables it to continue its attacks on Palestinian civilians with impunity.

This approach—combining the failure to impose consequences with the ongoing maintenance of political and economic relations—constitutes far more than a political or moral failure. It amounts to a deliberate abdication of the European Union’s binding obligations under international law, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Arms Trade Treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the rules of customary international law, including those on state responsibility, as well as the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, and Articles 3(5) and 21 of the Treaty on European Union.

This legal and institutional complicity is further deepened by the hypocrisy of European states that issue statements condemning “disproportionate” Israeli attacks, while simultaneously supplying arms, transferring surveillance and military technologies, and providing direct military and intelligence support. This constitutes not principled diplomacy, but performative posturing—an approach that deflects responsibility while materially enabling the machinery of atrocity. Such conduct directly undermines the international legal order and reinforces the conditions of impunity under which grave crimes continue to be committed.

This pattern is further illustrated by the recent sanctions announced by the United Kingdom, Norway, and others against two Israeli ministers. These measures—limited in scope and purely symbolic—target only inflammatory rhetoric, and only with respect to the occupied West Bank. They deliberately exclude any reference to Gaza, effectively shielding those most responsible for the unfolding genocide in the Strip. 

To date, no European punitive measure has addressed Israel’s conduct in Gaza. This silence is not an oversight—it is a calculated decision. And it is not neutral—it is complicity. By prioritizing political alliances and economic interests over their clear obligations under international law, European governments are not simply standing by—they are actively enabling and legitimizing Israel’s criminal campaign. In doing so, they are not only complicit in atrocity crimes, but are directly undermining the very foundations of the international legal order they claim to defend.

As Israel’s largest trading partner, second-largest arms supplier, and a key enabler of its access to global markets, finance, and mobility, Europe holds immense leverage—yet it chooses not to use it. Measures that are readily available include imposing a comprehensive arms embargo; enacting targeted sanctions against officials and entities responsible for the genocide; suspending the EU–Israel Association Agreement; blacklisting financial institutions complicit in international crimes; banning products from illegal settlements; revoking Schengen visa privileges; and recognizing the State of Palestine. The fact that these tools remain unused is not a matter of capacity—it is a failure of political will, legal integrity, and moral courage.

Concerning the obligation of accountability, The EU must actively support the International Criminal Court’s efforts to prosecute Israeli officials responsible for atrocity crimes in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory. This includes ensuring the prompt issuance and execution of arrest warrants and rejecting all political interference aimed at protecting perpetrators. In parallel, EU member states must initiate domestic investigations, including against their own nationals implicated in such crimes, and activate universal jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli officials responsible for crimes against the Palestinian people, in line with their obligations under international law.

The EU must uphold its legal obligations under international law and use all its influence to halt Israel’s crimes and protect Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Specifically, the EU must act without delay to exert effective pressure on Israel through the imposition of economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions to end its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), including the Gaza Strip; to halt all military assaults; to lift the blockade; and to ensure the immediate and unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, as well as the unconditional reconstruction of life-saving infrastructure and housing. 

Ireland has already begun to demonstrate what principled leadership looks like. Its decision to intervene in South Africa’s genocide case before the International Court of Justice, and its formal recognition of the State of Palestine, are concrete steps that reflect a willingness to uphold international law where others have chosen silence. Other European governments must follow suit, by joining the ICJ case, requesting provisional measures addressing Israel’s use of starvation as a genocide weapon in Gaza, and ending their practice of shielding Israeli officials from accountability.

Finally, EU member states and the United Kingdom must move beyond treating symptoms and act urgently to confront the root causes of the 77-year-long oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people. This requires ending the illegal Israeli occupation and dismantling the system of settler colonialism imposed across the occupied Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip. It entails the full evacuation of Israeli settlers, the dismantling of apartheid structures and territorial fragmentation, and the enforcement of the right of return and just compensation for all Palestinian refugees. It also calls for unwavering and sustained support for the Palestinian people’s pursuit of liberation and the realization of their full right to self-determination. Justice cannot be deferred any longer. The harm must be acknowledged and redressed, so that the Palestinian people may finally live in freedom, dignity, and peace.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

26 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to “change the face of the Middle East”. Yet, his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground.

Netanyahu’s opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation.

Netanyahu’s “product,” however, has proven utterly defective, yet the 75-year-old Israeli Prime Minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques.

But what exactly is Netanyahu selling?

Long before assuming Israel’s leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition – a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become “common sense”.

As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was “within three to five years” from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that “time is running out.”

While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat.

Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. 

However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy.

It was during Trump’s first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the forefront. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies’ “product” is denigrated with basic terms like ‘barbarism’, ‘dark age’, and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing ‘civilization’, ‘enlightenment’, and ‘progress’.

He also invested heavily in the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others while promoting his own as a far superior alternative.

This brings us to “solution framing.” For instance, the so-called “existential threats” faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a “New Middle East.” For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action, not only to save Israel but also the “civilized world” as well.

It must be noted that Netanyahu’s “New Middle East” is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the Middle East in a way that suited US geopolitical needs.

The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia.

American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded “greater” to “new,” thus coining the “New Middle East,” which she announced in June 2006.

Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, he declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. “We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,” he triumphantly declared in June 2021.

Even following the events of October 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and genocide that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on “change” rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. “I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,” he stated on October 9 of that same year.

And again in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was “pursuing” a plan to “assassinate Hezbollah leaders” with the aim of “changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.” And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every single instance, he contextualized the “change of the Middle East” with bombs and rockets, and nothing else.

In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel’s “mission” exceeds that of “defeating Hamas,” extending to “changing the face of the Middle East.” And finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word “face” to his new, envisaged Middle East.

Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu’s Middle East, much like the US’ old “greater Middle East,” remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the last two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking.

Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. 

26 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Daniel Kovalik and John Perry

Nicaraguans will fill the streets later this month to celebrate the 46^th anniversary of the Sandinista revolution.

On July 19, 1979, the Somoza dictatorship finally fell, ending 18 years of guerilla fighting and urban insurrections.

The regime had been supported for 43 years by successive US administrations (the history is told in Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention & Resistance).

Only three weeks before, over the two days June 27-28, Sandinista forces had been forced to leave the capital, Managua, where the working-class barrios that they controlled in the east of the city came under aerial bombardment. Under cover of darkness, an enormous, silent retreat took place. More than 6,000 insurgents left the city, mostly walking in single file, making their way by alleyways and then rural pathways for 20 miles, over bare volcanic hillsides, to reach the militant neighbouring town of Masaya. On the morning of the 28^th, when Somoza’s National Guard moved in for what they thought would be the final offensive, they found Managua’s eastern barrios almost deserted.

This strategic retreat, known as el repliegue, cost just six deaths among Sandinista fighters or supporters. One of these was Sócrates Espinoza Muñoz.

Sócrates was born in Masaya on July 1, 1955 into a family that, to outward appearances, supported the dictatorship. His father, Rosalío, was a sergeant in the National Guard and vehemently opposed the revolution. However, because his duties took him away from Masaya for long periods, he was unaware that the rest of the family not only supported the Sandinista uprising but used their home as a “safe house” to protect guerrilla fighters and hide weapons.

Sócrates joined the ranks of the Sandinista Front in 1977, identifying with its goals of social equality and freedom from the brutal dictatorship. He joined clandestinely, worked as a collaborator and took part in the final insurrection under the pseudonym “Edwin.” He joined a mobile unit on June 8 and learned to use the Mag 50 machine gun operated by his younger brother Rosalío (known as “Bronko”), who – 46 years later – recounted the events leading to Sócrates’ death.

On the morning of June 28, Bronko explained, their unit was covering the retreating forces as they reached the outskirts of Masaya, tired and in some cases wounded. After running out of ammunition, the unit was ordered to return to their temporary base by their commander, the 20-year-old Miriam Tinoco Pastrana (Comandante “Delia”), who would be killed in action only a week later. Sócrates asked for more ammunition, was given a band of 100 cartridges and he and Bronko set out again to cover the exhausted fighters who were still arriving. The National Guard’s base was in an old colonial fort on the summit of a hill overlooking Masaya, El Coyotepe. Sócrates and Bronko, skirting this hill as they looked out for retreating Sandinistas, came under attack, but managed to join other fighters and reorganize. By nightfall, now in heavy rain, with the Coyotepe now covered in clouds, they were patrolling the cotton fields to its north, guided by local peasants, often finding themselves knee-deep in mud. 

As they crossed one field, a flash of lightning revealed three silhouettes in a fence about 100 yards in front of them. Believing them to be National Guard soldiers who were fleeing, they set out to try to take them as prisoners. Bronko managed to grab a gun from one of them, and Sócrates threw himself on another. But a shot rang out, and Sócrates yelled, “they hit me.” Bronko killed the culprit and the others were captured. Sócrates’ companions found an empty house, took off a door and used it to carry him to safety.

Arriving in the city, they found that all the streets were blocked and cordoned off, and no vehicles were circulating. They had to navigate roadblocks, carrying Sócrates on their shoulders, eventually reaching the hospital. Doctors found that the bullet, which had entered his neck, had killed him. The following morning, under periodic gunfire from helicopters and an aircraft, Sócrates’ body was taken to his parents’ house and then buried in the nearby cemetery.

Dan Kovalik’s book, Nicaragua: A History of Us Intervention & Resistance, is dedicated to Sócrates Espinoza.

Standing at his grave 46 years later, surrounded by present-day Sandinista activists who had just adorned it with flowers, his sister Abigail extolled Socrates’ example of courage and commitment. “Like that of many who gave their lives for the Revolution”, she said “it is a legacy that we as revolutionaries must continue. No longer with weapons and risking our lives, but through the struggles for health and education where, for the huge advances we have made today, we have to thank our Sandinista government.”

Behind Abigail in the photo are Edwin and Paola, Sócrates’ son and daughter. As well as commemorating her father’s death, Paola was marking her birthday: she was born on June 28, 1978, exactly one year before Sócrates was killed.

Dan Kovalik is a human rights lawyer and author of a number of books, including “Nicaragua:  A History of US Intervention and Resistance.”

Nicaragua-based John Perry is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for MR Online, the London Review of Books, FAIR and CovertAction, among others.

30 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Jan Oberg and Oxfam International

Reposted from Baher Kamal’s excellent “Human Wrongs Watch” – which we recommend warmly, not because it is uplifting but because it monitors facts and truths about our international society that wealthy people – and Western ‘democratic’ leaders – everywhere would like you not to know about or think of.

That said, the facts that Oxfam continues to publish for those who care have only grown worse. It is one more reason, together with militarism and warfare, genocide and permanent, provocative policies, that will accelerate the decline and fall of the West.

Western capitalism has always been and will remain a wealth-creating machine for the few and unspeakable misery for the ‘damned of the earth.’ Even Oxfam’s recommendations will not be able to change that.

Compare that with China, which also has capitalist elements and thinking, but managed in about 30 years to eradicate poverty and lift half of its population out of poverty – and still sees itself as a developing country. Of course, say the ignorant, we cannot learn anything from China…

The West has concentrated wealth in a way that kills many times more people every day than all its wars. Johan Galtung coined the term for that sort of system: structural violence. Not only individuals or organisations harm and kill, evil systems kill too and more effectively, silently and by their structure and with much less media attention than direct violence.

You may also, simply, call it mal-development, a super dysfunctional system that does not deserve to continue to exist and harm and kill even more millions.

PS Check out another deeply disturbing article at Human Wrongs Watch, “Millions Go Hungry– While Billions Worth of Food Go into Landfills.” This is the West in a nutshell.

***

By OXFAM International

The world’s richest 1% increased their wealth by more than $33.9 trillion in real terms since 2015, reveals new Oxfam analysis ahead of the world’s largest development financing talks in a decade, in Seville, Spain.

This is more than enough to eliminate annual poverty 22 times over at the World Bank’s highest poverty line of $8.30 a day.

The wealth of just 3,000 billionaires has surged $6.5 trillion in real terms since 2015, and now comprises the equivalent of 14.6% of global GDP.

Oxfam’s new briefing paper, “From Private Profit to Public Power: Financing Development, Not Oligarchy”, launches today ahead of the June 30 fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, hosted by Spain and joined by over 190 countries.

Wealthy governments are making the largest cuts to life-saving development aid since aid records began in 1960.

Oxfam analysis finds that G7 countries alone, who account for around three-quarters of all official aid, are cutting aid by 28% for 2026 compared to 2024.

Whilst critical aid is cut, the debt crisis is bankrupting governments – 60% of low-income countries are at the edge of a debt crisis – with the poorest countries paying out far more to repay their rich creditors than they are able to spend on classrooms or clinics.

Only 16% of the targets for the Global Goals are on track for 2030.

• Oxfam condemns “private finance takeover” of development efforts, as over 3.7 billion people remain in poverty ten years after the Sustainable Development Goals were agreed
• New Oxfam analysis unveils “astronomical rise in private wealth”. Between 1995 and 2023, global private wealth grew by $342 trillion – 8 times more than public wealth.
• Oxfam analysis also shows governments are making the largest cuts to life-saving aid since aid records began. Aid cuts could cause 2.9 million more children and adults to die by 2030, from HIV/AIDS causes alone.
• Results of a new global survey show 9 out of 10 people support paying for public services and climate action through taxing the super-rich.
• Oxfam urges new strategic alliances to address inequality; urgently revitalize aid and tax the super-rich; and assert new “public-first” approach over private finance.

Oxfam’s new analysis examines the failures of a private investor-focused approach to funding development. A decade-long effort by major development actors to recast their mission as one of supporting powerful Global North financial actors has led in fact to a host of harms and at the same time only mobilized paltry sums.

The analysis also looks at the role of private creditors, who now outpace bilateral lenders by five times and account for more than half the debt owed by low- and middle-income countries, in exacerbating the debt crisis with their refusal to negotiate and their punitive terms.

“Seville is the first major gathering of countries worldwide at a time that life-saving aid is being decimated, a trade war has started, and multilateralism being fractured – all in the backdrop of the second Trump administration.

There is glaring evidence that global development is desperately failing because – as the last decade shows – the interests of a very wealthy few are put over those of everyone else,” said Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International.

What the World Bank described as a “billions to trillions” paradigm shift has been a boon for wealthy investors – the richest 1% own 43% of global assets – but now faces overwhelming evidence of failure, even according to former champions.

Alarmingly, there is new momentum behind the idea of diverting the little aid that remains to private financial actors.

“Rich countries have put Wall Street in the driver’s seat of global development. It’s a global private finance takeover which has overrun the evidence-backed ways to tackle poverty through public investments and fair taxation.

It is no wonder governments are abysmally off track, be it on fostering decent jobs, gender equality, or ending hunger. This much wealth concentration is choking efforts to end poverty”, said Behar.

New Oxfam analysis shows that between 1995 and 2023, global private wealth grew by $342 trillion – 8 times more than global public wealth, which grew by just $44 trillion.

Global public wealth – as a share of total wealth – actually fell between 1995 and 2023.

Oxfam is urging governments to rally behind policy and political proposals that offer a change in course by tackling extreme inequality and transforming the development financing system:

• New strategic alliances against inequality. Governments must band together in new coalitions to oppose extreme inequality. Countries such as Brazil, South Africa and Spain are offering leadership to do so internationally. A new ‘Global Alliance Against Inequality’ supported by Germany, Norway, Sierra Leone and others sets an example for nations to back.
• Public-first approach – reject the Wall Street Consensus. Governments should reject private finance as the silver bullet to funding development. Instead, governments should invest in state-led development – to ensure universal high-quality healthcare, education and care services, and explore publicly-delivered goods in sectors from energy to transportation.
• Total rethink of development financing – tax the ultra-rich, revitalize aid, reform debt architecture, and move beyond GDP indicators. Global North donors must urgently reverse catastrophic cuts to lifesaving aid and meet the 0.7% ODA target as minimum. Governments must back efforts for a new UN debt convention, and support the UN tax convention, building on Brazil’s G20 effort to tax high-net-worth-individuals.

“Trillions of dollars exist to meet the global goals, but they’re locked away in private accounts of the ultra-wealthy. It’s time we rejected the Wall Street Consensus and instead put the public in the driving seat.

Governments should heed widespread demands to tax the rich – and match it with a vision to build public goods from healthcare to energy. It’s a hopeful sign that some governments are banding together to fight inequality – more should follow their lead, starting in Seville”, said Behar.

Oxfam’s media briefing note, “From Private Profit to Public Power: Financing Development, Not Oligarchy” can be downloaded here.

30 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Michael Whitney

The American people are not being told why Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Iran. Yes, Israel was rapidly running out of air-defense interceptors (making it more vulnerable to Iranian attacks.) But that issue is only of secondary importance. The real reason they wanted a ceasefire was because they were getting systematically pulverized and needed to stop the bleeding fast.

That’s why Israel ‘threw in the towel’ less than two weeks after the opening salvo, because Iran was decimating one target after another with no end in sight. So, Israel capitulated.

Of course, that is not the story we’ve been reading in the western media where there’s no mention of the vast destruction of Israeli strategic targets (by Iranian ballistic missiles); that news has been completely omitted from the mainstream coverage. But that’s why Israel persuaded Trump to find a diplomatic off-ramp; because the losses were beginning to mount and Iran was not ‘letting up.’

Did you know that it is illegal to post videos or photos of buildings that have been struck by Iranian missiles in Israel? In other words, if you publish photos of smoldering buildings, infrastructure or military bases, you will go to jail. This is how the government controls the narrative and convinces the public that they are winning a war they are actually losing. But don’t take my word for it; here’s a video clip of an Israeli newscaster explaining how government censorship is impacting the peoples’ ability to figure out what is going on:

CH13’s Raviv Drucker: We have to say there is a bit of an Iranian aspect to the way we report missile strikes on our side. I’m not talking about the Weizmann Institute, but there were alot of missile hits on IDF bases, on strategic sites, that we still don’t report about to this day. And there’s a clear reason for that, which everyone at home understands. But along that clear reason, it created a situation where people don’t realize how precise the Iranians were and how much damage they caused in many places. We just know about the Weizmann Institute; there are many places we don’t know about. See this.

Repeat: it created a situation where people don’t realize how precise the Iranians were and how much damage they caused in many places.

What can we glean from this statement?

That Iran’s new generation of ballistic missiles are abundant, precise and lethal. To his credit, the newscaster seems to think that ordinary people deserve to be told about these cutting-edge weapons so they can make informed decisions regarding their own safety. We agree with this view, but we also know that the heavily censored, state-controlled, agenda-driven media is not going to change the way it disseminates information. After all, the media’s objective is not to inform but to shape public opinion.

But we’re getting off-topic. What we want to show is that Israel did not agree to the ceasefire because it had achieved its strategic objectives, but because it was getting hammered and wanted to stop the bleeding. We make that judgement based on a shortlist of the key military, intelligence, industrial, energy, and R&D facilities that were struck by precision guided ballistic missiles that wreaked havoc across Israel.

Keep in mind, Operation True Promise III unleashed no less than 22 salvos of state-of-the-art ballistic missiles (many used for the first time) that delivered withering blows to a number of heavily fortified Israeli sites that were regarded as ‘the most protected military bases in the world.’ Iran’s missiles blew through Israel’s defenses like at every turn reducing their targets to twisted metal and broken blocks of cinder. (One weapons expert estimates that just 5 percent of Iran’s ballistic missiles were intercepted.) This is from an article at Press TV:

Iran destroyed the so-called “Israeli Pentagon”, the Kirya military-intelligence complex in central Tel Aviv, which is shown as a smoldering hulk in the few photos published on X. Despite being one of the most heavily fortified locations in the occupied territories, protected by a multilayered shield of Israeli and American defense systems, the complex was unable to repel the Iranian missile barrage in the very first phases of True Promise III….

In Haifa, a precision-guided Iranian missile struck a high-rise building housing branches of the Israeli ministry of interior affairs responsible for internal military coordination. The strike disrupted logistical networks and emergency response systems at the municipal level. Press TV

Iranian missiles also took-out the Aman military intelligence headquarters at the Glilot Mizrah Interchange, near Herzliya. Aman oversees elite spying units such as Unit 8200 (signals intelligence), Unit 504 (human intelligence), and Unit 9900 (geospatial intelligence). The compound also houses Mossad’s operational headquarters—the Israeli regime’s notorious foreign intelligence agency….

Iran also struck the ‘impregnable’ Nevatim Airbase in the Negev desertwith over 30 ballistic missiles causing extensive damage that (of course) was not reported. Nevatim houses most of Israel’s F-15s and F-35s although we do not have an estimate of how many of those warplanes were destroyed. Here’s more from Press TV:

Other targeted airbases included Tel Nof and Ben Gurion near Tel Aviv, Ramat David near Haifa, Palmachim on the Mediterranean coast, and Ovda near Eilat.

Iranian missiles, including those used for the first time, targeted the command and control centers of the Israeli military and Mossad in both Tel Aviv and Haifa…..

On June 16, Iranian ballistic missiles hit the Bazan Oil Refinery in Haifa—the regime’s largest fuel processing center, which supplies around 60 percent of its gasoline, 65 percent of diesel, and over 50 percent of its kerosene.

The strikes caused significant damage, forcing the complete shutdown of the refinery and its subsidiaries. The Israeli energy minister later admitted the facility would need major reconstruction, estimating a partial restart no sooner than a month.

A nearby power plant was also damaged, triggering widespread blackouts across central regions of the occupied territories.

On June 23, Iranian missiles struck near a power station in Ashdod, triggering a powerful explosion and localized blackouts. Explosions and outages were also reported near Hadera, where Orot Rabin—Israel’s largest power plant—is located

In addition, Iran directly targeted military-industrial sites involved in recent Israeli aggression. Chief among them was the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems complex north of Haifa—home to multiple factories and R&D buildings that produce key elements of Israel’s military hardware.

Rafael manufactures Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile interceptors, both of which have failed repeatedly in stopping Palestinian and Iranian missiles. It also produces cruise and guided missiles used in strikes against Iran, including Spice kits and Popeye, Rocks, Spike, and Matador missiles.

The Kiryat Gat Industrial Zone—a major center for microprocessor and high-tech military production—was also struck. Iranian strikes reportedly damaged key production lines vital to Israel’s drone and surveillance programs.

Further south, the Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park near Beersheba, which hosts firms working in cyberwarfare, AI, and military tech, was not spared. Many of these companies collaborate closely with the Israeli military and the Mossad.

Another high-profile target was the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, south of Tel Aviv. Known for its military R&D and partnerships with Israeli military agencies, the institute suffered devastating damage to key laboratories. Members and professors of the institute confirmed the loss of years’ worth of research. The Weizmann Institute also plays a role in Israel’s clandestine nuclear program, with many of Dimona’s nuclear scientists having graduated from or taught at the institute. Press TV

Let’s summarize: In a little more than a week’s time, Iran struck or obliterated:

1. The “Israeli Pentagon”, the Kirya military-intelligence complex
2. The Weizmann Institute of Science which plays a role in Israel’s clandestine nuclear program
3. The Aman military intelligence headquarters at the Glilot Mizrah Interchange, near Herzliya. Aman oversees elite spying units such as Unit 8200 (signals intelligence), Unit 504 (human intelligence), and Unit 9900 (geospatial intelligence).
4. Branches of the Israeli ministry of interior affairs responsible for internal military coordination
5. The Mossad’s operational headquarters
6. Israel’s most protected Nevatim Airbase (and the Tel Nof Airbase)
7. Ben Gurion Airport (repeatedly) as well as Ramat David, Palmachim and Ovda near Eilat.
8. The Command-and-Control Centers of the Israeli military and Mossad in both Tel Aviv and Haifa…..
9. The Bazan Oil Refinery in Haifa—Israel’s largest fuel processing center
10. A giant power station in Ashdod, triggering a powerful explosion and localized blackouts.
11. The Rafael Advanced Defense Systems complex north of Haifa—home to multiple factories and R&D buildings that produce key elements of Israel’s military hardware
12. The Kiryat Gat Industrial Zone—a major center for microprocessor and high-tech military production
13. The Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park near Beersheba, which hosts firms working in cyberwarfare, AI, and military tech.

Get the picture? In just 10 days (June 13 to June 23) the Iranian military meticulously destroyed a sizable portion of Israel’s most prestigious military, intelligence, industrial, energy, and R&D facilities across the country. (Have you read about any of this in the western media?) Had the war continued for another week or two, the Holy Land would have been reduced to a smoldering third world wasteland unfit for human habitation. In short, this was no normal ceasefire. This was a desperate capitulation by an overmatched contender who quickly realized he was punching ‘above his weight’. Here’s how Trump summed it up:

“Israel got hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings,” Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday. See this.

Yes, Israel took a real beating.

We should note that there is no formal agreement between Iran and Israel. (No signed document or explicit commitments) The ceasefire was brokered through back-channel diplomacy, primarily mediated by Qatar. A senior White House official and a diplomat briefed on the talks indicated that Israel agreed to halt strikes if Iran ceased its attacks, and Iran signaled compliance with these terms through Qatari mediation. Trump announced the ceasefire as a “complete and total ceasefire” to be phased in over 24 hours, although there have been numerous violations by both sides since the original deal was made on June 23. (Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi initially stated there was “no agreement” but indicated Iran would stop its response if Israel held up its end of the bargain.)

The problem, of course, is that the ceasefire is not going to hold because Israel and the US see the truce as merely a way to buy-time to regroup and prepare for the next round of hostilities. (The same as Minsk) Consider the comments of Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz who said the following on Saturday:

[https://twitter.com/SuppressedNws/status/1938618630050140381]

This doesn’t sound like a man who is looking for a ‘lasting peace’ or even a temporary end to the fighting. It sounds like someone who’s already settled on a strategy for resuming the hostilities and is merely waiting for the green light (from Bibi) to put the plan into motion.

But what might that plan be, after all, Israel was already employing its top-line military weaponry and advanced air-defense systems. What other tools do they have that could be used to produce a different outcome that the one they just experienced after just 12 days of conflict?

This is where is gets scary because Israel has only two options: Either it draws the United States deeper into the conflict (including the deploying of ground forces) or it ‘goes nuclear’. There is no third option. So, whatever Bibi and his generals have ‘up their sleeve’, it’s going to be of a different force and magnitude than what we saw during the last dust-up. Check out this baffling blurb from the Times of Israel‘s Saturday edition:

After the US strike on Iran earlier this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump agreed on a rapid end to the war in Gaza and expansion of the Abraham Accords, Israel Hayom reports, citing “a source familiar with the conversation.”

According to the outlet, Trump and Netanyahu agreed in a phone call that the war in Gaza would end within two weeks. Four Arab states, including the UAE and Egypt, would jointly govern the Gaza Strip in place of Hamas. The terror group’s leadership would be exiled, and all hostages would be released.

However, Arab allies have repeatedly asserted that they will not take part in the postwar rehabilitation of Gaza absent Israeli acquiescence to the Palestinian Authority gaining a foothold in Gaza as part of a pathway to a future two-state solution, but Netanyahu has flatly rejected any PA role in the Strip….

Trump and Netanyahu were joined on the “euphoric” call late Monday night by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, says Israel Hayom….

Saudi Arabia and Syria would establish diplomatic ties with Israel, and other Arab and Muslim countries would follow suit…. Israel, for its part, would express its support for a future two-state solution, conditioned on reforms made by the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, the leaders agreed that Washington will recognize Israeli sovereignty in some parts of the West Bank. Times of Israel

People who follow events closely in the Middle East know that nothing in this article is true. There’s not going to be a rapid end to the war in Gaza, there’s not going to be a rapid expansion of the Abraham Accords, and there’s certainly not going to be Israeli support for a two-state solution.

So, what’s going on here, what is the point of this nonsensical propaganda that no one in their right mind is going to believe??

Let’s answer that question with a hypothetical: Let’s say, some unexpected 9-11-type catastrophe was to take place in the next few weeks that had Iranian fingerprints all over it. And let’s say this false flag was destructive enough that the “usual suspects” on Capitol Hill and the MSM demanded that Trump take immediate action and bomb Iran. If that scenario were to unfold, then wouldn’t it better for Bibi and Trump to be able to point to their recent efforts for resolving the Gaza crisis? Wouldn’t they benefit from the perception (by the public) that they had been actively pursuing peace but were unexpectedly derailed by Iran’s actions?

Indeed, they would.

Of course, this is all just speculation; I don’t know what’s going to happen. But when you have hardliners like Katz, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and countless others in Netanyahu’s looneybin government who believe that Israel must “keep the sword raised” to ensure Iran does not recover its military capabilities (Smotrich), then a prudent person will prepare for the worst.

Keep in mind, a number of Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that Netanyahu should “finish the job”, which is an intentionally vague term that refers to the use of a nuclear weapon.

In order to determine the probability of such an event, we must ask ourselves whether a government that justifies the killing and forced starvation of millions of women and children in their charge, has the moral scruples to oppose the use of the world’s most lethal weapon?

We should all be very worried that Netanyahu is going to do exactly what we would expect him to do.

*

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State.

29 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Operation Midnight Hammer (OMH) consisting in the deployment of B-2 Aircraft out of Whitman Air Force Base  was in many regards improvised. 

OMH was undertaken by US Central Command (USCENTCOM), based in Florida in close coordination with US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska.

In this article, we first put forth detailed evidence which refutes President Trump‘s June 22, 2025 Address to the Nation. 

We then proceed to examine the broader political implications. This improvised so-called “Twelve Days War” against Iran was NOT authorized by the U.S. Congress. 

Trump’s War on Iran: June 22, 2025

During his 10 p.m. ET address to the nation, Trump said, “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

“After U.S. B-2 bombers dropped six 30,000-pound GBU‑57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear site on Saturday night, President Donald Trump reposted an assessment from Open Source Intel that said “Fordow is gone”

Mr. President. Where is the Evidence? 

The above statement “Trump says Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities ‘completely and totally obliterated’ in US Strikes” is FALSE, MISTAKEN.

The following evidence was conveyed and confirmed within hours of President Trump’s Address to the Nation, largely from Iranian media and official sources:

“On June 22, according to the Iranian Tasnim News Agency, Menan Laehi, a representative of Qom Province in the Iranian Parliament, stated this morning (June 22) that contrary to claims made by U.S. President Trump, the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran has not been severely damaged;

The main damage is to the above-ground parts, which can be repaired.

He expressed confidence that “all items that could pose a threat to nearby residents” have long been cleared from the facility, and there are currently no reports of nuclear radiation.

He emphasized that Iran views this U.S. attack as a manifestation of direct U.S. involvement in the war, and it is now “Iran’s decision when and how to respond to the U.S.”

***

The following reports quoting Iran Military News states the following:

[https://twitter.com/iranianmilnews/status/1936616876987072862]

[https://twitter.com/IranIntl_En/status/1936769967476576643]

“If Fordo had been gone, you would have seen craters, electromagnetic ruptures, emergency airlifts, the work of seismographs and infrared flashes under the mountain

 There is no SAR confirmation at the moment.

There is no evidence of a cluster of craters.

There is no multispectral flash analysis.

There is no information about an underground fire.

There is no data on the BDA cycle. If Fordo is still in action tomorrow, Washington has just carried out the most expensive bunker-busting operation in history, only to watch Tehran climb the escalation ladder unscathed.

Perhaps not only did the attack fail, but they simply escalated without strategic success.” https://t.me/kavehintel/561 – zinc

In a followup article:

If Fordow is still spinning tomorrow, Washington will have carried out the most expensive bunker-penetration operation in history—only to watch Tehran climb the escalation ladder unscathed.

Not only may the strike have failed, but they have also escalated the situation without any strategic success.

Those sites were evacuated long time ago. That’s why there’s not much radiation as the result of these «attacks»” (Pravda, emphasis added)

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Press Conference. Trump Accuses Pentagon Accredited Journalists of “Fake News”

Press conferences are intent upon conveying information and evidence to journalists as well as answering questions. But that did not happen.

Below is the complete video of the Press Conference (6/26/25)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEpsAYWB2rQ]

Click here

See AP report here  link to video on Iran war, AP 

“Operation Midnight Hammer”(OMH): 14 Bunker Busters Bombs Against Iran’s Nuclear Sites

The official story is as follows:

“A bomber mission of seven B-2 Spirit Bombers, accompanied by more than 30 Tomahawk Attack Missiles fired from an Ohio-class guided-missile nuclear submarine struck three Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo, Pentagon officials confirmed on Sunday.

In the words of President Trump:

 “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” (White House Address, June 21 Y, 2025).

The evidence presented above refutes President Trump’s statement: (June 21, 2025 Nation Address).

Specifically regarding Forow. The B-2 bunker bomb operation was an absolute failure. 

Trump’s threats directed against accredited Pentagon journalists at Hegeth’s Press Conference are to no avail.

And eventually he will be obliged to acknowledge the truth, or will the “Big Lie” prevail. 

The GBU-57. Massive Ordnance Penetrator

 “30,000 lbs, with 5,000–6,000 lbs of explosives”

It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet into reinforced concrete or rock before detonation.”

The claim is that it can reach and destroy underground facilities such as nuclear enrichment sites.”

The initials “GBU” stand for “Guided Bomb Unit”

The “Bunker Buster Bomb Myth”. MIT Prof. Ted Postol

These claims are likely overstated or misunderstood, especially by political decision-makers, misinformed by defense contractors or military briefers.

The bomb must hit very close to or directly above a target, such as a tunnel or chamber, to do meaningful damage.

A blast cavity from the explosion is ~20–30 meters wide. If the actual tunnel is offset by more than that (30+ meters horizontally or vertically), it won’t be affected.”

Video: Prof. Ted Postol and Lt. Col. Daniel Davis

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TriASB-F5UY]

“U.S. attack models assume Iranian bunkers are simple, vertical shafts, but: Real underground bunkers may use offset tunnels, angled passages, or be built into irregular terrain like hills, making direct hits extremely unlikely.

Example: Iran’s Fordow facility is buried under a hill, making perpendicular impact very difficult.”  (Prof Ted Postol)

The Bunker Buster Gamble. Did it Pay OFF?

Prof. Ted Postol Examines in Detail the Bunker Buster Bombs used against Iran Nuclear Facilities.

“They Did not do Damage”

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA_eK13ptwA]

While the conduct of the attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities was an outright failure, there is nonetheless a “positive element” which will go down in Iran’s history. 

Failure of Trump’s OMH Attack.  A Chernobyl Style Catastrophe Was Avoided

Had the OMH Operation been conducted “successfully” from a military standpoint, this would have resulted in a Chernobyl style disaster characterized by a massive radioactive contamination and loss of life.

According to geopolitical and military analyst Drago Bosnic:”

The uranium used as fuel in nuclear power plants is enriched at 3.67%, which is considered far below the 90% or higher used in nuclear weapons. It should be noted that the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters used precisely this sort of nuclear fuel, which still resulted in massive radioactive contamination.

On the other hand, the Fordow facility had uranium enriched at 60%, meaning that radioactive fallout would’ve been far worse than Chernobyl.

Given the fact that no radiation was detected in the aftermath of the US strike, the only logical conclusion is that the reactors weren’t destroyed.  (Drago Bosnic, Infobrics, emphasis added)

What this analysis implies is that the failure of Trump’s military operation contributed to preventing an unspoken disaster.

The U.S. Congress has the Power to Declare War,  Not The President

War is a criminal act.  Military actions deliberately directed against civilians are illegal according to the laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

In the wake of 9/11, US-NATO have been routinely conducting “humanitarian wars” allegedly against terrorists. Humanitrian Warfare is supportive of Resposibility to Protect (R2P). The latter does not require US Congressional approval. Nor does it require a formal motion by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The Trump Administration casually invoked Article II of the US Constitution which defines the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief.

No consultations with the UN Security Council were undertaken. Breach of the Geneva Conventions. Scanty justifications were put forth by Trump officials.

“The administration is relying on the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution, two senior administration officials told CNN, which says he has power to direct US military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad.

The White House counsel’s office and the Justice Department were both involved in the legal analysis for the strikes. The administration relied, in part, on memos about war powers written by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel under previous administrations of both parties.”

“The president is clearly well within his Article II powers here,” one former senior US official told CNN. “End of story.” (CNN,emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

28 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

On June 24, US President Donald Trump announced a truce between Israel and Iran following nearly two weeks of open warfare.

Israel began the war, launching a surprise offensive on June 13, with airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, missile installations, and senior military and scientific personnel, in addition to numerous civilian targets. 

In response, Iran launched a wave of ballistic missiles and drones deep into Israeli territory, triggering air raid sirens across Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba and numerous other locations, causing unprecedented destruction in the country. 

What began as a bilateral escalation quickly spiraled into something far more consequential: a direct confrontation between the United States and Iran.

On June 22, the United States Air Force and Navy carried out a full-scale assault on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in a coordinated strike dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer. Seven B-2 bombers of the 509th Bomb Wing allegedly flew nonstop from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to deliver the strikes. 

The following day, Iran retaliated by bombing the Al-Udeid US military base in Qatar and firing a new wave of missiles at Israeli targets.

This marked a turning point. For the first time, Iran and the United States faced each other on the battlefield without intermediaries. And for the first time in recent history, Israel’s long-standing campaign to provoke a US-led war against Iran had succeeded.

Strategic Fallout

Following 12 days of war, Israel achieved two of its goals. First, it pulled Washington directly into its conflict with Tehran, setting a dangerous precedent for future US involvement in Israel’s regional wars. Second, it generated immediate political capital at home and abroad, portraying US military backing as a ‘victory’ for Israel.

However, beyond these short-term gains, the cracks in Israel’s strategy are already showing.

Netanyahu did not achieve regime change in Tehran—the real objective of his years-long campaign. Instead, he faced a resilient and unified Iran that struck back with precision and discipline. Worse still, he may have awakened something even more threatening to Israeli ambitions: a new regional consciousness.

Iran, for its part, emerges from this confrontation significantly stronger. Despite US and Israeli efforts to cripple its nuclear program, Iran has demonstrated that its strategic capabilities remain intact and highly functional. 

Tehran established a powerful new deterrence equation—proving that it can strike not only Israeli cities but US bases across the region.

Even more consequentially, Iran waged this fight independently, without leaning on Hezbollah or Ansarallah, or even deploying Iraqi militias. This independence surprised many observers and forced a recalibration of Iran’s regional weight.

Iranian Unity

Perhaps the most significant development of all is one that cannot be measured in missiles or casualties: the surge in national unity within Iran and the widespread support it received across the Arab and Muslim world.

For years, Israel and its allies have sought to isolate Iran, to present it as a pariah even among Muslims. Yet in these past days, we have witnessed the opposite. 

From Baghdad to Beirut, and even in politically cautious capitals like Amman and Cairo, support for Iran surged. This unity alone may prove to be Israel’s most formidable challenge yet.

Inside Iran, the war erased, at least for now, the deep divides between reformists and conservatives. Faced with an existential threat, the Iranian people coalesced, not around any one leader or party, but around the defense of their homeland. 

The descendants of one of the world’s oldest civilizations reacted with a dignity and pride that no amount of foreign aggression could extinguish.

The Nuclear Question

Despite the battlefield developments, the real outcome of this war may depend on what Iran does next with its nuclear program. 

If Tehran decides to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—even temporarily—and signals that its program remains functional, Israel’s so-called “achievements” will be rendered meaningless.

However, if Iran fails to follow this military confrontation with a bold political repositioning, Netanyahu will be free to claim—falsely or not—that he has succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The stakes are as high as they’ve ever been.

A Manufactured Farce

Some media outlets are now praising Trump for supposedly “ordering” Netanyahu to halt further strikes on Iran. 

This narrative is as insulting as it is false. What we are witnessing is a staged political performance—a carefully orchestrated spat between two partners playing both sides of a dangerous game.

Trump’s Truth post, “Bring your pilots home,” was not a call for peace. It was a calculated move to reclaim credibility after fully surrendering to Netanyahu’s war. It allows Trump to pose as a moderate, distract from Israel’s battlefield losses, and create the illusion of a US administration reining in Israeli aggression.

In truth, this was always a joint US-Israeli war—one planned, executed, and justified under the pretext of defending Western interests while laying the groundwork for deeper intervention and potential invasion.

Return of the People

Amid all the military calculations and geopolitical theater, one truth stands out: the real winners are the Iranian people.

When it mattered most, they stood united. They understood that resisting foreign aggression was more important than internal disputes. They reminded the world—and themselves—that in moments of crisis, people are not peripheral actors in history; they are its authors.

The message from Tehran is unmistakable: We are here. We are proud. And we will not be broken.

That is the message Israel, and perhaps even Washington, did not anticipate. And it is the one that could reshape the region for years to come.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

25 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org