The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
The strikes were intended to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”
A U.S. sailor signals the launch of an F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft,
attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 31, on the flight deck of the
world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), while
underway during “Operation Epic Fury,” March 15, 2026. Credit: U.S.
Navy.
American forces carried out an 11th consecutive night of strikes
against Iran on Tuesday, targeting military operations centers, maritime
capabilities, aircraft hangars, drone storage sites and logistics
infrastructure, U.S. Central Command said.
The strikes were
intended to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial
shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” according to CENTCOM.
The
military said Iran has attacked more than 30 commercial vessels
transiting the strategic waterway over the past three months,
endangering “hundreds of innocent mariners” and undermining freedom of
navigation.
“Despite Iranian aggression, the Strait of Hormuz
remains open for commercial vessel transit,” CENTCOM said, adding that
U.S. forces have helped facilitate the transit of some 900 commercial
vessels and 450 million barrels of crude oil through the strategic
shipping lane since early May.
Iran launched six ballistic missiles toward the southern Jordanian port city of Aqaba following the American strikes.
“Air
defense systems detected six missiles launched from Iranian territory
toward the kingdom and engaged them immediately upon their entry into
Jordanian airspace,” an official Jordanian military source told the
state-run Petra News Agency.
Four missiles were intercepted, while the remaining two landed in remote, uninhabited areas, the report said.
Earlier
on Wednesday, Iran’s military claimed that it launched overnight drone
attacks on U.S. military assets in Jordan and Bahrain.
The unmanned aerial vehicles targeted housing units and an equipment depot at a military base in Jordan, according to Fars News, an outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Fars said additional drones targeted hangars and other buildings used by U.S. troops at a military facility in Bahrain.
The Jordanian military told the Petra News Agency that the country’s air defenses intercepted four Iranian drones. No injuries or damage were reported, an official said.
There was no immediate comment from authorities in Bahrain.
U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that he would “soon” order an attack on Pickaxe Mountain, an underground Iranian site suspected to be used for nuclear activity.
“We’ll
be hitting that area pretty soon, and very heavily,” Trump said,
speaking during a meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
“There’s
not a thing they can do about it. You know, normally I wouldn’t say
that. If I thought they could do something about it, I would never say
that,” he added.
Trump said the U.S. believes the Islamic regime
“may have” stored centrifuges at the facility but added, “We don’t have
it on record.” Even if Iran did, he said, “it doesn’t mean anything
unless they have the [nuclear] material.”
The Wall Street Journal
reported on Monday that Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved
thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges into tunnels deep inside
Pickaxe Mountain last fall, a relocation Israeli and U.S. officials say
could allow Tehran to reconstitute its nuclear program despite heavy
American and Israeli strikes on three main nuclear sites during the
12-day war in June 2025.
Ohad Tal, a Knesset lawmaker for Israel’s
Religious Zionist Party, told JNS on Wednesday that there was currently
“no need for Israel to intervene” in the Iran war.
“The U.S. is
striking Iran night after night, Iran’s economy continues to weaken and
the regime is under immense pressure. It’s no coincidence that they are
avoiding attacks on Israel and instead targeting weaker countries in the
region,” Tal told JNS.
“Ultimately, our strategic objective
should be the collapse of the Iranian regime, and that will be achieved
through sustained pressure—not only military. We delivered devastating
military blows to Iran during operations ‘Rising Lion’ and ‘Roaring
Lion.’ Now is the time to ramp up the economic and diplomatic pressure,”
he added.
Likud Party MK Eli Dallal told JNS that “Iran is not
exclusively an Israeli problem—it is a global problem, and the United
States is taking the lead on it.”
“The most important issue, and
one that President Trump has said he will not compromise on, is Iran’s
nuclear program. We see that Trump is determined to address the nuclear
issue because, God forbid, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, we
understand that it would create a problem for the entire world and have a
negative global impact,” he continued.
“As such, I believe Trump
will resolve this issue in the coming months,” Dallal said. “Israel
cannot intervene without coordination with the United States. As such,
the issue must be coordinated between the leaders, Netanyahu and Trump.
There must be coordination because it is the right thing to do for
Israel.”
Trump sent the new threat as he considers both a ceasefire and a significant military escalation. His key condition for a ceasefire is for Iran to stop its attacks on ships and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
President Trump threatened
Wednesday to destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant, including in
Tehran, each time Iran attacks a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
Why it matters:
Trump sent the new threat as he considers both a ceasefire and a
significant military escalation. His key condition for a ceasefire is
for Iran to stop its attacks on ships and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Driving the news: U.S. Central Command said Iran has attacked more than 30 commercial vessels over the past three months.
Several attacks came after the U.S. and Iran signed a June memorandum of understanding calling for a ceasefire.
What he's saying:
"From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots
at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket,
Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and
destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or
in, the Capital City of Tehran," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Between the lines:
The U.S. has already bombed bridges in southern Iran over the last 11
days of fighting. Targeting power plants and striking Tehran would mark
another escalation.
Attacking Tehran would likely lead to an even wider Iranian retaliation.
Iran's response: An
unidentified military source quoted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps-affiliated Tasnim News Agency said Iran would not allow the Strait
of Hormuz to become a source of threats against it.
"Iran
will not abandon its firm determination to control the strait, which it
considers essential to the strait's long-term security. If the Americans
target an Iranian bridge or power plant, Iran will respond by striking
infrastructure and bridges across the region, including energy
facilities in which the United States has interests."
Editor's note: This is breaking news and will be updated.
According to Axios' sources, the visit aimed to coordinate the US and Israel ahead of the ongoing negotiations with Iran and the nuclear issue.
Roman Gofman, military secretary to Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, waits before a joint press conference of US President Donald
Trump and Netanyahu in the State Dining Room at the White House, in
Washington, DC, US, September 29, 2025(photo credit: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST)
Roman Gofman, the new head of the Mossad, met with CIA
Director John Ratcliffe during his recent trip to Washington to talk
about the war in Iran and the latest developments on the Iranian nuclear
program, Axios reported on Wednesday.
This was Gofman's first trip to the US since being named chief of the Mossad back in June.
According to Axios' sources, the visit aimed to coordinate the US and Israel ahead of the ongoing negotiations with Iran and the nuclear issue.
The
report also noted that Ratcliffe was among the most pessimistic US
officials on the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Iran, warning
that the Iranians would have a different interpretation of the deal than
the US.
Axios said that both the CIA and the Mossad refused to comment on the meeting.
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds first working meeting with the
Director of the Mossad Roman Gofman at the Mossad headquarters. (credit:
GPO)
Gofman's first month as head of the Mossad
Gofman was named chief of the Mossad on June 2, after a lengthy legal battle that required a ruling of the High Court of Justice in order to be approved.
His
selection was initially approved by the Senior Appointments Advisory
Committee, which is tasked with examining whether any issues of
integrity, conduct, or propriety could render an appointment improper.
The
appointment then faced intense legal hurdles, with two petitions filed
against it. One was filed by Ori Elmakayes and the Movement for
Integrity in Government, and the other by the Movement for Quality
Government in Israel and Forum Homat Magen LeIsrael.
Attorney-General
Gali Baharav-Miara also opposed the appointment before the court,
arguing that the committee majority’s renewed approval still could not
serve as a valid basis for Netanyahu’s decision.
On
June 1, the High Court of Justice rejected petitions challenging his
appointment, with only Justice Dafna Barak-Erez dissenting, saying
significant questions remained open and should still be examined before
the appointment takes effect.
Sarah Ben-Nun and Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
The effort to single out Jewish and Israeli tourists was widely condemned by Italian politicians across the political spectrum.
Lawmakers attend a session at the Italian Senate in Rome on Oct. 4, 2017. Credit: Fratello Gracco via Wikimedia Commons.
An online campaign calling on people to surveil and report the
whereabouts of Jewish and Israeli tourists, or anyone suspected of
having ties to “Zionists,” has sparked anger among Israeli diplomats,
local Jewish leaders and Italian politicians.
The anonymous
campaign, focused in Milan and spread via social media and messaging
apps, involved a link that opened to a Google document. It asked
questions to identify the exact locations of Jewish and Israeli
individuals, including specific hotels, vacation rentals, and commercial
establishments, to create what it called “a mapping of Zionist
tourism.”
The information would be used for unspecified future initiatives, the form said.
“This
form is intended to record cases of Zionist tourism, property
purchases, and, more generally, Zionist neo-colonization in Italy,”
according to the document. “The data collected will be received by the
Global Sumud Movement and will remain protected and confidential.”
The
Global Sumud Movement, which organizes anti-Israel activities in
Europe, including the recent flotillas to the Gaza Strip, denied any
involvement in the campaign following the backlash.
“I think we’re
going back to the 1930s, to the hunt for Jews,” Milan Jewish Community
President Walker Meghnagi said. “Mapping where Jews are is extremely
serious.”
He called on the judiciary to intervene and for all parties to take a stand against the campaign.
Undersecretary
of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Alessandro
Morelli, a member of the conservative League Party, a junior partner in
Italy’s ruling coalition, condemned the form as “abhorrent,” harking
back to “the dark ages of Nazi-Fascism.”
He also called for the unanimous political condemnation of the “racist initiative.”
“We’re
essentially talking about blacklists. We’re returning to the extremely
dangerous climate that preceded the racial laws,” said Italian Senator
Graziano Delrio of the Democratic Party, the main opposition party,
referring to a series of antisemitic and segregationist decrees enacted
by Benito Mussolini’s Fascist regime between 1938 and 1943.
Israeli
Ambassador to Italy Jonathan Peled posted to X on Sunday, “The
initiative to map Zionist tourism in Italy is an abominable action that
highlights the alarming growth of antisemitic hatred in Italy and
reveals, once again, the extremist and discriminatory drifts of the
Pro-Pal movement.”
L’iniziativa di mappare il turismo sionista in Italia è un’azione abominevole che evidenzia la preoccupante crescita dell’odio antisemita in Italia e rivela, ancora una volta, le derive estremiste e discriminatorie del movimento Pro Pal.
— Ambassador Jonathan Peled (@JonathanPeled) July 20, 2026
The European Jewish Congress, the main umbrella organization for
Jewish communities across Europe, said of the questionnaire, “Presented
as a ‘mapping of Zionist tourism,’ the initiative effectively encourages
the identification and targeting of individuals based on their actual
or perceived Jewish identity or nationality.
“Such attempts to
single out individuals based on their identity create fear, fuel hatred
and place Jewish communities at greater risk. The Italian authorities
must act swiftly to ensure those responsible are held accountable and
that such dangerous practices are stopped immediately,” it added.
Violence is now, without doubt, a part of British politics, just as it is now, without doubt, a part of American politics.
When I saw the first picture of Joshua Kerry, the man accused of
murdering former British MP Ann Widdecombe, I knew without a moment’s
hesitation.
“This man is a leftist. The worst kind.”
I said so on X, too.
I’ve gotten in trouble before for suggesting there’s such a thing as
“leftist physiognomy” — a distinctive set of physical features that
instantly identify a person as a leftist, especially a radical one — but
I’ll happily defend that position, no matter how loud my critics scream
and stamp their feet.
The very first hit piece that was ever written about me, four years
ago now, largely focused on comments I had made on a podcast about
leftism as a biological phenomenon. I noted that the Antifa rioters
arrested in Portland during the Summer of Floyd were all, to a man,
woman, and whatever the third thing is they think they are — “hideously
ugly, malformed people.” My exact words. Google “Portland Antifa
Mugshots” yourself if you don’t believe me. Tell me I’m wrong.
Granted, there are some pretty weird people on the right too,
especially on the fringes, but as a rule of thumb I think leftists are
an ugly bunch, and it has something to do with the ugliness of their
motivations, which include “feelings of inferiority” and
“oversocialization,” as the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski described, as well
as a “titanic hatred of the well-turned-out and beautiful” (Bronze Age
Pervert). There’s also some scientific research to back me up. One study
showed
people rated as better-looking were more likely to identify as
conservative and Republican and to feel their actions could influence
politics. Another study found
that participants consistently rated conservative politicians as more
attractive than leftist politicians and that this translated into more
votes, especially in “low-information” elections where voters don’t
really know much about the candidate beyond how they look.
Anyway, there had already been some clear indications that the murder
of Ann Widdecombe was a political killing before we knew what the man
arrested for her killing looked like, or anything much about him. We
still don’t know much about him, but I think we know enough to draw some
meaningful conclusions.
Widdecombe was about as well known as a right-wing politician could
be in the UK. She served for 23 years, from 1987 to 2010, as
Conservative MP for Maidstone, occupying cabinet roles in the John Major
government and then shadow cabinet roles under William Hague, in
opposition. Always a strong Eurosceptic, she left the Conservatives and
joined the Brexit Party, which later became Reform, and was a member of
the European Parliament for South West England until 2020. She then
served as Reform’s immigration and justice spokeswoman. She was a
staunch traditionalist and famously didn’t mince her words or back down
from a challenge. She was not ashamed to be anti-abortion, anti-gay
marriage, pro-law and order, and patriotic. She famously converted to
Catholicism in 1993 when the Church of England decided to ordain women.
After retiring from Parliament in 2010, she became a celebrity in her
own right, taking her pugnacious character onto the nation’s screens at
prime time. She starred in “Strictly Come Dancing” — our version of
“Dancing with the Stars” — and demonstrated remarkable staying power
despite her two left feet, becoming an underdog fan favorite and
surviving for nine weeks on the strength of popular support alone. She
was runner-up in “Celebrity Big Brother” and featured regularly in a
variety of panel shows like “Have I Got News for You,” “Question Time,”
and “Loose Women” (think “The View”), as well as documentaries. She even
made a cameo in “Doctor Who.” She toured theaters and wrote books.
It was only natural, given who she was, what she was known for, and
the current political climate, that people would immediately suspect a
political motive when news broke that she had been violently killed in
her own home. The police and the left-wing British government, however,
chose to run with a different angle, the “burglary gone wrong.” It
wasn’t a totally implausible alternative. Elderly people are killed
during burglaries, intentionally or otherwise. Widdecombe was 78. It
quickly became clear, however, how self-serving this interpretation was.
A local man was arrested. The police enthusiastically, lingeringly
described him as “white” at a press conference: an obvious attempt to
dispel rumors that Widdecombe was yet another victim of a recent arrival
to the country. The police are increasingly tight-lipped about the
ethnicity of crime suspects, for reasons that aren’t hard to guess.
Shortly after, the man was released, and police said he was no longer a
suspect.
The “burglary gone wrong” narrative collapsed when Joshua Kerry was
arrested, and it was revealed he had probably traveled nearly 300 miles,
from Rotherham in the north of England, to attack her.
Nobody drives 300 miles to “randomly” murder someone. This must have been a targeted attack.
Reform leader Nigel Farage felt confident enough to say last week
that Kerry was a “hard-left activist” who “hated anyone with an opposing
view” and was “an intolerant individual obsessed with Soviet
communism.” There had been rumors that communist materials had been
found at his home, and internet sleuths dug up evidence Kerry was
involved with a political party called “Your Party,” founded by former
Labour leader and doctrinaire old-school socialist Jeremy Corbyn. A
female member of Kerry’s family, on the very day Widdecombe was killed,
had made comments on social media about Farage’s security arrangements
and whether they were justified. (Farage has been embroiled in a scandal
over a £5 million private gift he has used to pay for increased
personal security, among other things. He chose to step down and trigger
a by-election in his constituency as a vote of confidence in his
fitness as an MP.)
Those comments from Farage were made before it became public knowledge
at the weekend, thanks to Britain’s Sun newspaper, that the suspect’s
bedroom walls were found covered with news clippings about him. A source
from the police told the paper, “The articles on the walls were all
about Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, his party, and their immigration
policies. . . It would appear he had a profound dislike of the party,
its leader, and its policies.”
The British government has been largely silent about the case. Farage
was right when he also said that if a left-wing politician had been
murdered and there was even the suggestion of a political link to the
right, it would be 24/7 news and the government wouldn’t stop talking
about it. The blame would be pinned directly on him.
That silence, a refusal even to countenance the idea of there being
targeted left-wing violence, is bad enough. There are more sinister
possibilities. Two days after Kerry’s arrest, Home Secretary Shabana
Mahmood announced that police had foiled a terror plot against a large
Muslim gathering. Twelve men—presumably “right-wing extremists,” because
who else would target a large gathering of Muslims? — had been
arrested. Mahmood told Parliament the arrests had “undoubtedly saved
lives.” But days later the suspects were released, and police said they
“found no evidence to support anyone being charged with any offenses
linked to the alleged threat.” Reform’s shadow home secretary, Zia
Yusuf, called for Mahmood to resign over the affair, saying she had
“misled Parliament” and was a “disgrace.” He stopped short of saying
what many others were saying: that the government had cooked up the plot
to distract from the Widdecombe case.
Far-fetched? Maybe not. In recent years the British government and
intelligence services have taken to stage-managing the public response
to traumatic and embarrassing events in an increasingly obvious way.
It’s called “controlled spontaneity,” and it’s not unlike what the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service was doing
to cover up anti-white murders; for example, the murder of Donald
Giusti, who was kicked and stoned to death by a group of Somalis in a
park in Maine. The response to the Manchester Arena suicide bombing is
one instance where controlled spontaneity was used to divert attention
away from justified outrage at government policies and the presence of
Muslim extremists in Britain towards vapid public expressions of “unity”
and forgiveness. Crowds were encouraged to sing the Oasis song, “Don’t
look back in anger” — as if anger were an illegitimate response to
dozens of children being killed and maimed at a pop concert by a man who
should have been left tending goats in a fly-swept village in North
Africa.
Police could easily have been told to nab a group of idiots saying
edgy things on the internet or WhatsApp. Such people are not in short
supply.
The internet was also apparently purged of all references to Joshua Kerry. The left-wing activist group Hope Not Hate—the group that doxxed me
in 2024, possibly with the help of the intelligence services — deleted
its web page about Ann Widdecombe. The page had described her as
“homophobic and sexist,” accusing her of “embracing . . . dangerous and
divisive politics” by joining Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. Thankfully,
there’s the Internet Archive to preserve exactly what was said. Still,
evidence was deliberately being scrubbed.
We need not only speculate. Violence is now, without doubt, a part of
British politics, just as it is now, without doubt, a part of American
politics. In both cases, the targets are far more likely to be
right-wing than left-wing. Farage, as Britain’s most prominent
right-wing politician, has borne the brunt so far, not only of the
standard rhetoric—Nazi, fascist, racist, etc. — but also of
physical attacks in public. He’s been “milkshaked” — had a milkshake
thrown over him — multiple times. In 2019, obese comedienne Jo Brand
said, on the BBC, that she would have preferred if someone had thrown
acid over Farage instead. “Why bother with a milkshake when you could
get some battery acid?” she said.
The BBC decided, somehow, that her comments were not incitement to violence.
It’s not hard to see where this is going — where it has already led,
if the murder of Ann Widdecombe is indeed a political killing. It’s
exactly the same process that led to three attempts on the life of
President Trump, the murder of Charlie Kirk, an attempt by a transgender
man to kill Scott Bessent and burn down the Heritage Foundation, an
attempt to kill a Supreme Court justice at his home, vehicle attacks on
ICE agents, and ambushes outside detention centers . . .
In the U.S., at least, you have a right-wing government that’s in a
position to confront the problem of left-wing violence and actually do
something about it. The Department of Justice and the State Department
are finally coming to life to tackle the radical left at home and
abroad. The conviction of an Antifa terror cell in Texas that attacked
an immigration facility has provided a strong precedent for pursuing
other cells and putting their members in prison for hundreds of years.
Last week, Marco Rubio held a meeting with foreign representatives of
around 70 countries to discuss the threat of transnational left-wing
terrorism. In a remarkable speech at the conference, Rubio called
leftism a “revolt of the worst against the best, of the weak and the
cowardly against the strong and the good.”
“It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, cannot create, cannot
achieve great things, and take their revenge upon the world for their
own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can,” Rubio said.
“It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality,
justice, liberation; an overwhelming need to tear down what greater men
have built, to wreck what is beautiful and right, on behalf of people
who are only filled with ugliness and have nothing else to offer the
world.”
The speech could have been written by me — or by someone who reads my tweets.
In the UK, by contrast, the left remains in power and probably will
remain in power until 2029, which is the earliest a general election has
to be called. A new Labour prime minister, Andy Burnham, was installed
this week, without contest, and he’s brought radical leftists, including
former members of Hope Not Hate, into Downing Street with him. A member
of the Muslim Council of Great Britain too. The right is still on the
outside, looking in. Nigel Farage could lose his seat, and even if he
regains it, he will be subject to further measures from the “Donald
Trump playbook.” Reputation destruction, spurious investigations,
lawfare, and harassment by the media and activists. And always the
possibility of that other thing too, stalking his every move.
The NJ government and its vendor now publicly dispute who was supposed to catch an error that allowed thousands of noncitizens to register to vote, raising direct questions about the integrity of the safeguards voters are told they can trust.
Just hours after New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherril blamed a
software glitch for thousands of non-citizens being registered to vote,
the software company involved issued a statement disputing the claim.
IDEMIA, the software vendor for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission, issued a statement saying it was the responsibility of the
state government, which is completely controlled by Democrats, to verify
eligibility to vote.
“IDEMIA works with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, and has
for more than 40 years, to support the process through which eligible
individuals may indicate their interest in registering to vote when
applying for or renewing a driver’s license or state-issued
identification card. IDEMIA’s role is to transmit information through
the motor vehicle system,” IDEMIA said in a statement to Just the News.
“The voter registration information is transmitted to the New Jersey
Department of State, Division of Elections, which is ultimately
responsible for verifying eligibility to vote. Information submitted by
IDEMIA must still be validated and adjudicated by the Division of
Elections.”
Sherrill blamed the software company on Tuesday, Just the Newsreported,
saying the glitch allowed 6,660 non-citizens to register to vote. She
also said that as many as 400 of those non-citizens has in fact voted in
a recent election, though she claimed those who voted “were registered
as Democrats, Republicans and Unaffiliated voters and were scattered
across the state." It is unclear for which candidate the non-citizens
voted.
"These individuals answered 'no' when asked on a keypad whether they
were a U.S. citizen when applying for drivers' licenses and
identification cards, but through no fault of their own, the system
registered them anyway," Sherrill said.
Sherrill also said the error occurred under the previous administration of Gov. Phil Murphy, also a Democrat.
The applicants correctly indicated that they were not U.S. citizens, according to Sherrill, but the system accidentally recorded them as citizens.
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill is blaming a software glitch in the
state's motor vehicle system for accidentally registering 6,660
noncitizens to vote.
She further acknowledged Tuesday as many as
400 of those foreigners voted in recent election despite a legal ban on
foreigners voting in federal elections.
The admission came less than a week after President Donald Trump gave
a primetime address presenting evidence of election vulnerabilities,
including hundreds of thousands of noncitizens who made it on voter
rolls, spy agency concerns about voting machine security and a Chinese
effort to obtain American voter data.
Sherrill was among those Democrats to deride the speech. But on
Tuesday she had to reverse course and acknowledge the problem with
noncitizens registering and voting in her state.
The applicants correctly indicated that they were not U.S. citizens,
according to Sherrill, but the system accidentally recorded them as
citizens.
The error occurred under the previous administration of Gov. Phil
Murphy, a fellow Democrat, and about 400 of those who were mistakenly
registered to vote cast ballots, Sherrill said.
"These individuals answered 'no' when asked on a keypad whether they
were a U.S. citizen when applying for drivers' licenses and
identification cards, but through no fault of their own, the system
registered them anyway," Sherrill said.
"Our preliminary analysis shows fewer than 400 individuals who were
newly registered for the first time because of the error voted," the
governor said. "They were registered as Democrats, Republicans and
Unaffiliated voters and were scattered across the state."
"I am appalled by the reckless failures that allowed this to happen
and the lack of transparency shown by those in charge at the time," she
said.
"Our paper was pretty strong in saying 'there's no way,' but I have less confidence in that statement at this stage," scientist Kristian Andersen said in Slack messages revealed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Scientists Kristian Andersen and Eddie Holmes pegged the odds of a
Chinese lab leak at 30% and 20%, respectively, contrary to their public
assertion that there was "no evidence" SARS-CoV-2 was engineered, though
Holmes later revised down his estimate to 10%.
Their paper in Nature Medicine "was pretty strong in saying 'there's no way,' but I have less confidence in that statement at this stage," Andersen said.
The suspicious furin cleavage site on the virus, which makes it
unusually transmissible to humans, also alarmed Andersen, who identified
it among "smoking(ish) guns" that "I'm not comfortable with."
1/ NEW: I'm releasing Slack messages from the authors of "Proximal Origin," the paper used to shut down the lab-leak question in early 2020. Their private conversations tell a very different story than their public paper. 🧵
The authors planned to "stay off email" and "carefully curate some
emails for the FOI [Freedom of Information] records" after the leak of
the DEFUSE proposal to insert furin cleavage sites into bat coronavirus, submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
They also freely discussed their coordination with the U.S.
intelligence community and "my spy" in China, as Holmes described one of
the contacts feeding him sensitive information in China.
Andersen mentioned being assigned "a handler" the same day
then-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director
Anthony Fauci briefed the IC during a 90-day origins investigation. He
also said "the spooks will spend quite a bit of time in Sunny San
Diego," where Andersen's Scripps Research lab is based, during the IC
review.
The authors discussed "getting something back to Tony['s] team at
NIH" about the leaked DEFUSE proposal and "chatting to the intelligence
folk."
Directly contradicting Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins,
the authors freely admitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the prime
suspect for a lab leak, was conducting "a lot" of gain-of-function
research on SARS coronaviruses, "although there are also other labs that
have been doing that."
One of them belongs to DEFUSE participant Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, they noted. Baric is retiring from the University of North Carolina under a cloud, having been kicked off his NIH grants for an apparent "pattern of deception" relating to the nature of his research.
Newly released federal records are raising fresh questions about what scientists privately believed about the origins of COVID-19.
Documents obtained by Sen. Rand Paul suggest some experts who publicly downplayed the lab leak theory privately acknowledged uncertainty about where… pic.twitter.com/SQTLz0gNSl
The subpoenas are part of an investigation into more than $39 million that went from Signham to the nonprofits.
The House Ways and Means Committee subpoenaed three left-wing nonprofits with ties to Marxist tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham.
The subpoenas are part of an investigation into more than $39 million that went from Signham to the nonprofits, Fox News reported.
The three nonprofits are People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based
activist hub; BreakThrough News, a left-wing nonprofit media outlet; and
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.
The committee alleges that the three nonprofits failed to turn over
any documents responding to earlier requests for information.
The Republican Party is divided between the isolationist faction embodied by Vice President JD Vance and the majority who remember all too well that what starts in Sudetenland does not stay in Sudetenland, and who still see Israel, a fellow democracy, as a powerhouse of military and human intelligence essential for maintaining US influence in the Middle East.
Shortly after signing the
MOU, Trump expressed approval for Iran's continued production of
ballistic missiles: "I'm saying that if other countries have them,
it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some.... If Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say in relative
proportion, I think it's okay." No, it is not "okay." Qatar and
Saudi Arabia do not go around shooting up their neighbors or vowing
"Death to Israel" and "Death to America" every day.
It would be naive not at least to consider the possibility that
countries such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan are all charmingly -- and
often lavishly -- waiting Trump out, while positioning themselves for their versions of "best interests" the minute he leaves office.
"Qatar is at the top of funding terrorism worldwide.... Even more
than Iran," according to Udi Levy, a former senior official of Israel's
Mossad spy agency who dealt with economic warfare against terrorist
organizations.
Turkey has been appearing as Trump's back-up "friend," and it now
hopes that he will supply F-35 stealth fighter jets, even as it plans
for a war with Israel and threatens Greece and Cyprus.
The Republican Party is divided between the isolationist faction
embodied by Vice President JD Vance and the majority who remember all
too well that what starts in Sudetenland does not stay in Sudetenland,
and who still see Israel, a fellow democracy, as a powerhouse of
military and human intelligence essential for maintaining US influence
in the Middle East.
According to the New York Times, Vance talked Trump into
this "deal" with Iran's terrorist regime, a situation worse than no
deal, because one succumbs to the soothing illusion that you might
actually have an enforceable agreement. It is the same trap that British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain walked into with Germany's Reich
Chancellor Adolf Hitler in 1938, but by now we should know better. What
the US should pursue is unconditional surrender -- "We win, they lose" -- as with Germany and Japan in World War II.
Trump was offering Iran billions to "rebuild" -- it is not clear what,
but likely its military and nuclear weapons program. Iran's frozen
assets, therefore, were not to be used to repay the US, Israel or the
Arab Gulf States for the damage Iran inflicted on them, but to rebuild
Iran's nuclear program, which includes "thousands of uranium-enrichment
centrifuges" hidden under Pickaxe Mountain. Iran was about to be
rewarded for waging a 47-year war by getting repaid to continue it.
Israel flatly announced that it would continue to defend itself –
as well as defending Western civilization – despite Vance's unseemly
and misplaced fulminations, which falsely portrayed Israel as the
belligerent while ignoring Iran, the actual aggressor.
The MOU contains not one word about the regime's violent
crackdown on the Iranian people. According to Trump, 54,000 Iranian
protestors were killed by Iran's security forces in January alone....
The Iranian people feel betrayed.
Vance, who has never expressed friendly sentiments toward Israel
nor supported the war on Iran, was given the task of negotiating with
Iran. He has been trying to defend his indefensible MOU and slamming
Israeli officials who, frozen out of the negotiations, had the nerve to
express reservations about the abysmal results.
Trump has claimed several times that "regime change" has already
taken place in Iran. This is misleading and he knows it. The IRGC has
always been part of the regime; it now holds the levers of power. The
mullahs' regime has simply become the IRGC regime. The faces have
changed but the same policies and institutions remain.
Trump originally described Iran's current leaders as "less
radical" and "very rational people" -- until, just hours after the
electronic signature, the very official who had signed it, Mohammad
Bagher Ghalibaf, went on television and called for "the liberation of
Jerusalem."
What Trump may be forgetting is that Americans love victory.
It is to be hoped that now Trump will actually "finish the job" -- with regime change and without F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. Otherwise, the chance of any long-term peace in the Middle East is zero.
"Scum" would seem quite fitting to describe the current
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leadership of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, especially after Israel informed US President Donald
J. Trump that Iran's leaders are planning to kill him. Pictured: Crowds
gather for the funeral procession of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei, in Mashhad, on July 9, 2026. (Photo by Wakil Kohsar/AFP via
Getty Images)
"Scum" would seem quite fitting to describe
the current Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leadership of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, especially after Israel informed US President
Donald J. Trump that Iran's leaders are planning to kill him.
It is to be hoped that the US President might now kindly reconsider
who his real friends are and who America's real friends are. A few of
President Trump's "good friends" he has mentioned are the leaders of Qatar, Turkey, Russia and China. They might be friends of his;
unfortunately, that does not mean they have at heart the best interests
of America or the West. Their definitions of "best interests " may well
consist of what they would like -- not necessarily what the Free World might like.
It would be naive not at least to consider the possibility that
countries such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan are all charmingly -- and
often lavishly -- waiting Trump out, while positioning themselves for their versions of "best interests" the minute he leaves office.
Qatar, a country with only 350,000 citizens, reportedly has "invested" between $400 billion and $1.2 trillion
since 2000 toward "influencing" the United States. It is not promoting
Jeffersonian democracy. This number does not include Qatar's gift to the
US of a $400 million "flying palace" presidential jumbo jet or a pledge
of $243 billion, "laying the groundwork for a bigger $1.2 trillion
economic pledge." What is Qatar requesting and expecting as a return on
the investment? Has anyone asked?
Qatar is also the largest supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly seeks "the downfall of the West by its own hands." The Muslim Brotherhood's motto
is "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our
law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
"Qatar is at the top of funding terrorism worldwide.... Even more than Iran," according to
Udi Levy, a former senior official of Israel's Mossad spy agency who
dealt with economic warfare against terrorist organizations.
Turkey has been appearing as Trump's back-up "friend," and it now hopes that he will supply F-35 stealth fighter jets, even as it plans for a war with Israel and threatens Greece and Cyprus.
Indoctrination is coming from China (here, here and here),
instilling unfavorable views of Israel and the United States, and
trying to derail America from constructing data centers and further
developing artificial intelligence.
The Republican Party is divided
between the isolationist faction embodied by Vice President JD Vance
and the majority who remember all too well that what starts in
Sudetenland does not stay in Sudetenland, and who still see Israel, a
fellow democracy, as a powerhouse of military and human intelligence
essential for maintaining US influence in the Middle East.
China's record of unscrupulousness against the US is as long as it is elaborate. It includes sending spy balloons over America's most sensitive military bases; buying "farmland" next to them; flooding the country with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids that have taken the lives of more than 100,000 Americans each year, the equivalent of downing one large passenger plane every day; developing deadly pathogens in secret laboratories; smuggling poisonous agricultural pathogens into the country, stealing roughly $600,000 worth of intellectual property each year; lying
about the human transmissibility of Covid-19, thereby costing the lives
of more than one million Americans; smuggling in hundreds of military-aged men
who may be waiting for a cue from their home country; creating so far,
by an industrial-scale birthright-tourism industry, an estimated 1.3
million new American citizens who are immediately taken back to China
and educated there until they are 18, when they can return, vote, donate
to campaigns, run for office and potentially take over America -- to
name just a few of the Chinese Communist Party's infractions.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, has, for the length of
his career, brought nothing but grief to every place he touched. He
turned the Russian city of Grozny into rubble, approved the use of chemical weapons in Syria; and invaded Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine -- where he has seen more than 2 million Russian casualties since his ill-advised invasion.
After reading the non-binding Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran, one might well wonder how the president could have approved such a text. It has been described as "a surrender agreement with a murderous and cruel terror regime."
According to the New York Times, Vance talked Trump into this "deal"
with Iran's terrorist regime, a situation worse than no deal, because
one succumbs to the soothing illusion that you might actually have an
enforceable agreement. It is the same trap that British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain walked into with Germany's Reich Chancellor Adolf
Hitler in 1938, but by now we should know better. What the US should pursue is unconditional surrender -- "We win, they lose" -- as with Germany and Japan in World War II.
The MOU failed to address any of the objectives outlined by Trump on February 28, when US and Israeli military operations against Iran began. Not a single word addresses the danger posed by Iranian ballistic missiles, even though it has become clear — since Iranian launches directed at Diego Garcia—that
Iran possesses many with a range far exceeding previous estimates.
Iran's missiles are capable of reaching most of Europe and they may soon
have missiles putting the United States within range.
Worse, shortly after signing the MOU, Trump expressed approval for Iran's continued production of ballistic missiles:
"I'm saying that if other countries have them, it's a
little bit unfair for them not to have some.... If Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, and they all have some, I would say in relative proportion, I
think it's okay."
No, it is not "okay." Qatar and Saudi Arabia do not go around shooting up their neighbors or vowing "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" every day.
There was also no mention in the MOU of Iran's terrorist proxies, except for an oblique and ambiguous mention of "Lebanon." The text states
that the cessation of hostilities is "total and permanent" on "all
fronts, including in Lebanon," and that Lebanon's "territorial integrity
and sovereignty" will henceforth be guaranteed. The Iranian regime
appears to have been reading that as implicit permission for its
terrorist proxy, Hezbollah -- which took over Lebanon by being granted
veto power in its government in 2008 -- to stay in place to continue
trying to obliterate Israel.
Also overlooked by the MOU was the devastation caused by the massive
assaults on Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey (roughly 22,000 sq
km). Wars against Israel, into which Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon,
have turned beautiful Lebanon, once the "Switzerland of the Middle East," into a failed state.
The agreement also required that "immediately upon the signing of
this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its
naval blockade." Trump was therefore agreeing to relinquish
the leverage that the US had against the Iranian regime. The text
further states that Iran will grant free passage to all vessels in the
Persian Gulf for a period of "sixty days only" -- the "only" meaning
that after 60 days, Iran could demand from commercial ships tolls or
"fees" for transiting the strait. Iran therefore now regards the strait
as being under its control.
"The United States of America," the MOU continues, "undertakes, with
regional partners, to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at
least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of
the Islamic Republic of Iran". Trump was offering Iran billions to "rebuild" -- it is not clear what,
but likely its military and nuclear weapons program. Iran's frozen
assets, therefore, were not to be used to repay the US, Israel or the
Arab Gulf States for the damage Iran inflicted on them, but to rebuild
Iran's nuclear program, which includes
"thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges" hidden under Pickaxe
Mountain. Iran was about to be rewarded for waging a 47-year war by
getting repaid to continue it.
Even if the funding would not have come directly from American
taxpayers, but instead from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, the
proposal implied
that Iran's regime was about to be restored as powerful as ever, and
that neighboring countries could soon expect to pay a protection tribute
for using the Strait of Hormuz.
The risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons — the central issue Trump
says he is seeking to prevent with the war — was touched on in the MOU,
in a highly watered-down
manner. The text states that "the Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms
that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons." Iran's regime has
consistently claimed — while lying
— that it has no desire for nuclear weapons. By signing the MOU, Trump
appeared to accept this lie as the truth. In addition, he had previously
demanded the removal or destruction of enriched uranium; then suddenly,
he accepted "on-site blending" — at least until the uranium was enriched back up again.
The text also specified that this process would take place "under the
supervision of the IAEA." After witnessing the International Atomic
Energy Agency's sorry lack of effectiveness in the past, that provision should be permanently written off as wishful thinking.
The text concluded by speaking of upcoming talks regarding "the issue
of enrichment, and other mutually agreed matters relating to the
Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs," signaling that Trump might be
willing to accept
continued uranium enrichment and possession of centrifuges – which, it
turns out, Iran had already secreted under Pickaxe Mountain -- and noted
briefly in the MOU as "keeping the status quo."
"Immediately upon the signing of this MOU," the document stipulated,
"and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury
will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum
products and derivatives" – a waiver that Trump later rescinded
following Iran's ceasefire violations.
The MOU, as argued by those seeking to excuse the wretched nature of
its content, is not a formal, binding treaty. It nevertheless established the foundation and framework for negotiations that had already begun. Ironically, the text of the MOU aligned so closely with Iranian demands
that Iran's leaders could easily have adhered to what had been accepted
by the United States while preserving whatever they wished.
As for the goal of regime change in Iran, which Trump had promised the Iranian people by writing "Help is on its way," he quickly declared
a thing of the past: "We are not seeking regime change in Iran." Iran's
current leadership, dominated by the ruthless IRGC, will be able to
rebuild and consolidate its power. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf
states, which have apparently grasped this new threat, have been acting
accordingly. Having probably -- not surprisingly -- lost confidence in
American security guarantees, they appear to be adapting to the survival of Iran's regime and banking on maintaining dialogue with it rather than confronting it.
The MOU contains not one word about the regime's violent crackdown on the Iranian people. According to Trump, 54,000 Iranian protestors were killed by Iran's security forces in January alone. The MOU did not mention the continuing
mass arrests, tortures, rapes or executions. The regime's atrocities
and the repression of its own citizens would therefore not only have
continued but likely intensified. The tens of thousands of Iranians
massacred by the regime in January have already been forgotten; they are
simply never mentioned. The Iranian people feel betrayed.
For the time being, it seems, Iran's Houthi proxy in Yemen will remainin place and continue to be funded and armed by Iran. Israel flatly announced that it would continue to defend itself – as well as defending Western civilization
– despite Vance's unseemly and misplaced fulminations, which falsely
portrayed Israel as the belligerent while ignoring Iran, the actual
aggressor.
Thanks to the impressive efforts of US Secretary of State Marco
Rubio, the government of Lebanon is in the process of implementing a
plan to be rid of Iran's main proxy, Hezbollah. Rubio oversaw the
signing of an agreement
-- this one binding -- between the Lebanese, US and Israeli governments
affirming their "shared goal of achieving lasting peace." This binding
agreement contradicts the terms of the non-binding MOU signed with Iran.
Israel has fought
the war on Iran alongside the United States with the aim of preventing
Iran's regime from acquiring nuclear weapons and causing further harm to
the Middle East, the US and the Free World. Like the Gulf Arabs – not
to mention most of the Iranian people – Israel would probably like to
see the end of Iran's regime. Instead, a IRGC military regime, as
horrendous or worse than that of the mullahs, remains
in place, attacking neighbors with missiles and drones, supporting
terrorism, and torturing and executing its citizens. Although weakened,
Iran still possesses highly enriched uranium, missiles and drones and it
is claiming ownership
of the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway, demanding
"protection" fees from commercial ships and firing on those that
decline.
On April 8, reportedly at Vance's urging, Trump decided on a two-week ceasefire that lasted more than two months. Informed late about the ceasefire and excluded from the negotiations that followed the ceasefire, Israel was not mentioned in the MOU, even as an "entity." Trump and his administration have made it clear that they expect Israel to accept all US decisions.
The Israeli people remember that Trump has long acted as a good
friend to Israel, but they see that he has recently distanced himself
from their country in favor of enemies that are sworn to Israel's
destruction. Trump even denied that Israel had shared intelligence about Iran's newest assassination attempt.
Vance, who has never expressed friendly sentiments toward Israel nor
supported the war on Iran, was given the task of negotiating with Iran.
He has been trying to defend his indefensible MOU and slamming Israeli
officials who, frozen out of the negotiations, had the nerve to express
reservations about the abysmal results. For the US vice president to
have stated
that it is in the interest of Israeli leaders not to antagonize "the
only powerful ally [they] have anywhere left in the entire world" was as
inaccurate as it was venomous. Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic,
Poland, India, Argentina, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco,
and Bahrain -- the last three members of the Abraham Accords -- have
all been steadfast allies.
Trump has claimed
several times that "regime change" has already taken place in Iran.
This is misleading and he knows it. The IRGC has always been part of the regime;
it now holds the levers of power. The mullahs' regime has simply become
the IRGC regime. The faces have changed but the same policies and institutions remain.
Trump originally described Iran's current leaders as "less radical" and "very rational people"
-- until, just hours after the electronic signature, the very official
who had signed it, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, went on television and called for "the liberation of Jerusalem." Recently he announced that Iran "will not allow any interference in the Strait of Hormuz," then began violating every agreement.
What Trump may be forgetting is that Americans love victory.
Russia and China remain Iran's allies; if Trump now proves to be irresolute, they will quickly help Iran regain its strength.
The Iranian regime insists that it will kill Trump, control the Strait of Hormuz, and, in general, suit itself.
European leaders, who, at the conflict's outset, declared "this is not our war," will most likely continue to pursue a policy of appeasement toward Iran while distancing themselves from Israel.
"We cannot have a status quo in which Iran can close the Strait at
any time or use its proxies to attack Israel," former US Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo warned on June 19. "We have to finish the job so that this regime is defanged — period".
On July 8, President Trump, at a NATO summit in Ankara, had
apparently seen enough. Iran had fired on three commercial vessels in
the Strait of Hormuz in violation of a week-long pause it had requested
for the funeral of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Trump announced that the ceasefire was "over", called Iran's leaders "scum" and said, "Let's just finish the job."
The US has been bombing Iranian military installations for the last
ten days, impeding Iran's ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.
It is impossible to believe that any kind of "deal" with Iran's
current regime -- which will not abide by one anyhow -- is even being
contemplated.
It is to be hoped that now Trump will actually "finish the job" -- with regime change and without F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. Otherwise, the chance of any long-term peace in the Middle East is zero.
Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.
