SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war crimes
Israel's Unprovoked Bombing of Iran Violates International Law. Full Stop.
Trump himself paved the way to this war by trashing the 2015 nuclear deal, but now he must condemn—not support—this brazen and unlawful military campaign.
Jun 13, 2025
The government led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday launched a war on Iran, bombing sites related to the latter’s civilian nuclear refinement program at Natanz and Fordow but also targeting Tehran apartment buildings where senior regime military figures were present.
If Israeli fighter jets struck unenriched uranium stockpiles, they will have thrown radioactive dust into the air, which may cause lung cancer in the affected population. If they struck enriched uranium, that would be like a dirty bomb. Israel itself has several hundred atomic bombs and is the reason for the nuclear arms race in the Middle East, but Tel Aviv and Washington ignore this stockpile of warheads when they denounce Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program (and now try to destroy it), even though Iran does not have a bomb and no major Western intelligence agency thinks they have militarized their program.
Trump had signaled repeatedly that he did not want the Israelis to attack, but Netanyahu appears to hold to the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) theory of the president’s behavior.
Among those killed were the Chief of Staff of Iran’s conventional armed forces, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Hossein Baqeri. This would be like a hostile foreign nation bombing an apartment building in Washington, D.C., to kill (God forbid) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine. Then the Israeli bombers killed the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Maj. Gen. Hossain Salami. We don’t have an exact equivalent of the IRGC in the US, but maybe it would be like a foreign country bombing Steve Nordhaus, the head of the National Guard Bureau. Another high ranking IRGC officer, Maj. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid, was also killed. The Israelis rubbed out Fereydoun Abbasi, the chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the counterpart of Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy.
Iran launched 100 drones at Israel in retaliation.
Netanyahu announced that it was only the beginning of a days-long campaign.
Iran is not assessed by U.S. intelligence to have a military nuclear weapons program, only a civilian uranium enrichment program. The country is allowed in international law to make fuel for its Bushehr reactor, built by Russia, with more planned. Thus, the Israeli attack violates international humanitarian law.
Israel is now waging war on people in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran, in what appears to be an attempt to establish itself as a regional hegemon and to quash any regional opposition to its plans to ethnically cleanse the over 5 million Palestinians it militarily occupies.
Netanyahu launched the strikes to thwart the peace negotiations being conducted with Iran by President Donald J. Trump’s administration via Oman, striking a day before the next talks were scheduled to take place. Trump had signaled repeatedly that he did not want the Israelis to attack, but Netanyahu appears to hold to the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) theory of the president’s behavior. He pointedly thanked Trump in his address to the nation, clearly hoping that Iran might take some action against America in response and so draw Trump into a war he clearly does not want.
Ironically, Trump himself paved the way to this war by trashing the 2015 nuclear deal concluded by the UN Security Council with Iran, which effectively blocked Iran from ever militarizing its program. Iran faithfully adhered to its prescriptions until 2019, a year after Trump tore up the treaty and placed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Had the 2015 deal remained in place, it is difficult to imagine the Security Council putting up with Netanyahu’s military adventurism, which might have attracted serious sanctions.
Netanyahu was likely to some extent wagging the dog with this attack, since his governmental coalition is in danger of falling apart over the issue of the conscription of Ultra-Orthodox Jews, most of whom support Netanyahu. The latter, however, has been led to argue for conscription. The Ultra-Orthodox Jews are some 14% of the population now, but were only 2% when Israel was founded and the government of David Ben-Gurion pledged to allow them to study the Torah rather than serving in the military or getting a real job. Now this community is the ultimate welfare queens, and non-Orthodox Israelis deeply resent their refusal to serve in the military. Many Ultra-Orthodox are not Zionists and do not believe than an Israel can be established before the Messiah appears.
A war with Iran is therefore Netanyahu’s double attempt to thwart the outbreak of peace between Iran and the U.S. and to thwart attempts to bring his government down domestically through a vote of no confidence.
Netanyahu clearly assesses that Iran is a paper tiger, and cannot actually inflict much harm on Israel, since Tel Aviv and Washington can intercept most Iranian drones and missiles, and Iran does not have much of an air force. Israel has already reduced the power of Iran’s regional allies such as the Hezbollah of Lebanon. Although some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia branded the attack illegal, nobody in Riyadh will shed any tears about Iran being taken down a notch.
It is, however, unlikely that Israeli attacks can do more than set back Iran’s uranium enrichment program, since the country has a big establishment by now of nuclear scientists and it has its own uranium, and the know-how it has built up cannot likely be extinguished. Netanyahu does not have a long-term vision for his relations with the Middle East, instead following the fascist prescriptions of the de facto founder of his Likud Party, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who urged that the Jewish settler-colonists in Palestine (he used such terminology) lash out hard at any opposition and crush it. This philosophy set in train the decades of whack-a-mole that the Israeli military plays with regional countries and peoples. It hasn’t made Israel secure, though it has made Netanyahu rich and powerful.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Sudan Crisis and America's Complicity: When Corruption Fuels Atrocity
The world is watching. So are the people of Sudan. The question is whether the United States will choose complicity—or conscience. We must act now.
Jun 10, 2025
In a world deluged with crises—each vying for our limited attention—the catastrophe unfolding in Sudan has remained largely invisible to the American public. Yet, by almost any measure, it is among the most severe humanitarian emergencies of our time. Over 30 million people—two-thirds of Sudan’s population—now require humanitarian support. More than 12 million have been displaced, and famine threatens to claim countless lives. This is not a distant tragedy; it is a crisis in which American policy and the interests of American capitalists are deeply entangled.
Now, Congress is poised to vote on a set of resolutions that could finally interrupt the United States’ role in fueling this disaster. You can call your Senator and ask them to support S.J.Res.51, S.J.Res.52, S.J.Res.53, and S.J.Res.54—the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval by Senator Chris Murphy et. al. that would block more than $3.5 billion in proposed arms sales to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar. The Congressional Switchboard is at 202-224-3121.
This legislation is likely to come up this week and that makes this a rare moment of real leverage for American activists and concerned citizens. The urgency is clear: unless Congress acts, the U.S. risks deepening its complicity in Sudan’s suffering.
At the epicenter of Sudan’s unraveling is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group whose origins trace back to the notorious Janjaweed militias involved in the Darfur genocide in the early 2000s. The RSF has been implicated in a series of systematic atrocities: targeted ethnic violence, mass killings, forced displacement, and widespread sexual violence. Investigations by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have all pointed to the same grim conclusion: the RSF’s actions constitute war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and, in the assessment of the U.S. State Department, genocide.
The mechanics of how these atrocities are sustained have already come into focus. According to Amnesty International, recently manufactured Emirati armored personnel carriers are now in the hands of the RSF. Flight data and satellite imagery have revealed a pattern: cargo planes departing from the UAE, landing at remote airstrips in Chad, and then offloading weapons and equipment that would soon appear on the front lines in Sudan. A New York Times investigation concluded that the UAE was “expanding its covert campaign to back a winner in Sudan, funneling money, weapons and, now, powerful drones” to the RSF.
What makes this all the more alarming is that the UAE is one of America’s closest military partners—and a major recipient of U.S. arms. Despite repeated assurances to Washington that it would not arm Sudan’s belligerents, the UAE has continued these transfers, as confirmed by the Biden Administration in one of its last acts as well as by members of Congress.
There is, however, another angle to this story—an angle that speaks to the corrosion of U.S. foreign policy by incredibly narrow financial interests. President Donald Trump and his family have cultivated deep financial ties with both the UAE and Qatar. The UAE has invested $2 billion in a Trump family crypto venture; Qatar has bestowed a $400 million on that luxury aircraft everyone’s heard about, intended for the U.S. presidential fleet, in a gesture that blurs the line between diplomacy and personal favor. These transactions are not just unseemly; they are emblematic of this new era in which U.S. foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the private interests of a handful of oligarchs.
To call this “kleptocracy” is not hyperbole. The intertwining of arms sales, foreign influence, and personal enrichment undermines both U.S. standing and the interests of the average American. Each weapon sold, each deal brokered, risks making the United States more complicit in the suffering of Sudan’s civilians.
To call this “kleptocracy” is not hyperbole. The intertwining of arms sales, foreign influence, and personal enrichment undermines both U.S. standing and the interests of the average American.
The Sudan crisis is a reminder that America’s actions abroad are neither abstract nor inconsequential—and all the uniqueness of the Trump 2.0 administration hasn’t changed that. U.S. policies still reverberate in the lives of millions. As citizens, we have a responsibility to demand that our leaders act not out of expedience or self-interest, but out of a sense of justice and human dignity. With a congressional vote imminent, the window for meaningful action is open—but it is closing fast.
The world is watching. So are the people of Sudan. The question is whether the United States will choose complicity—or conscience. Please call your Senators today at 202-224-3121.Keep ReadingShow Less
'Humanitarian' Façade by Israel Cannot Hide Genocide
The decision to allow some food into Gaza, though patently insufficient to stave off the deepening famine, was meant as a distraction, as the Israeli war machine relentlessly continued to harvest the lives of countless Palestinians on a daily basis.
Jun 09, 2025
The decision resonated as shocking for all sides. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose entire war strategy hinges on the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, unilaterally decided on May 19 to allow “immediate” food entry to the famine-stricken Strip.
Of course, Netanyahu still maneuvered. Instead of permitting at least 1,000 trucks of aid to enter the utterly destroyed and devastated Gaza per day, he initially allowed a mere nine trucks, a number that nominally increased in the following days.
Even Netanyahu's staunch supporters, who fiercely criticized the decision, found themselves confounded by it. The prior understanding among Netanyahu's coalition partners regarding their ultimate plan in Gaza had been unequivocally clear: the total occupation of the Strip and the forced displacement of its population.
The latter was articulated as a matter of explicit policy by Israel's Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich. “Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to... third countries,” he declared on May 6.
For food to enter Gaza, however minuscule its quantity, directly violates the established understanding between the government and the military, under the leadership of Netanyahu's ally, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir.
These two significant additions to Netanyahu's war cabinet replaced Yoav Gallant and Herzi Halevi. With these new appointments, Netanyahu stood poised for his master plan.
When the war commenced on October 7, 2023, the Israeli leader promised that he would take control of the Gaza Strip. This position evolved, or rather was clarified, to signify permanent occupation, though without the Palestinians themselves.
To achieve such a lofty objective–lofty, given Israel's consistent failure to subdue the Palestinians over the course of nearly 600 days–Netanyahu and his men meticulously devised the "Gideon's Chariots" plan. The propaganda that accompanied this new strategy transcended all the hasbara that had accompanied previous plans, including the failed "Generals' Plan" of October 2024.
The rationale behind this psychological warfare is to imprint upon the Palestinians in Gaza the indelible impression that their fate has been sealed, and that the future of Gaza can only be determined by Israel itself.
The plan, however, a rehash of what is historically known as “Sharon's Fingers,” is fundamentally predicated on sectionalizing Gaza into several distinct zones, and leveraging food as a tool for displacement into these camps, and ultimately, outside of Gaza.
However, why would Netanyahu agree to allow food access outside his sinister scheme? The reason behind this relates profoundly to the explosion of global anger directed at Israel, particularly from its most staunch allies: Britain, France, Canada, Australia, among others.
Unlike Spain, Norway, Ireland and others that have sharply criticized the Israeli genocide, a few Western capitals have remained committed to Israel throughout the war. Their commitment manifested in supportive political discourse, blaming Palestinians and absolving Israel; unhindered military support; and resolute shielding of Israel from legal accountability and political fallout on the global stage.
Things began to change when US President Donald Trump slowly grasped that Netanyahu's war in Gaza was destined to become a permanent war and occupation, which would inevitably translate to the perpetual destabilization of the Middle East – hardly a pressing American priority at the moment.
Leaked reports in US mainstream media, coupled with the noticeable lack of communication between Trump and Netanyahu, among other indicators, strongly suggested that the rift between Washington and Tel Aviv was not a mere ploy but a genuine policy shift.
Though Washington had indicated that the "US has not abandoned Israel," the writing was clearly on the wall: Netanyahu's long-term strategy and the US' current strategy are hardly convergent.
Despite the formidable political power of the pro-Israel lobby in the US, and its robust support on both sides of the Congressional aisle, Trump's position was strengthened by the fact that some pro-Israeli circles, also from both political parties, are fully aware that Netanyahu poses a danger not only to the US, but to Israel itself.
A series of decisive actions taken by Trump further accentuated this shift, which received surprisingly little protest from the pro-Israel element in US power circles: continued talks with Iran, the truce with Ansarallah in Yemen, talks with Hamas, etc.
Though refraining from openly criticizing Trump, Netanyahu intensified his killings of Palestinians, who fell in tragically large numbers. Many of the victims were already on the brink of starvation before they were mercilessly blown up by Israeli bombs.
On May 19, Britain, Canada, and France jointly issued a strong statement threatening Israel with sanctions. This unfamiliar language was swiftly followed by action just a day later when Britain suspended trade talks with Israel.
Netanyahu retaliated with furious language, unleashing his rage at Western capitals, which he accused of “offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities.”
The decision to allow some food into Gaza, though patently insufficient to stave off the deepening famine, was meant as a distraction, as the Israeli war machine relentlessly continued to harvest the lives of countless Palestinians on a daily basis.
While one welcomes the significant shifts in the West's position against Israel, it must remain abundantly clear that Netanyahu has no genuine interest in abandoning his plan of starving and ethnically cleansing Gaza.
Though any action now will not fully reverse the impact of the genocide, there are still two million lives that can yet be saved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular