‘We Are in a Good Place’: Nato, Europe and the Dangerous Illusion of Nuclear Security

By Biljana Vankovska

July 10, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by George R. Caron/Wikimediacommons, in public domain

‘I think when it comes to nuclear, we are really in a good place.’ With these words, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte described the state of the Alliance’s nuclear strategy at the pre-Summit press conference in Ankara on 6 July 2026. The phrase was intended to project stability, confidence, and reassurance. Yet, to anyone familiar with the history of the nuclear age, it reveals something far more disturbing: the dangerous normalization of the belief that more nuclear weapons, more deployments, and greater confrontation can somehow produce greater security.

This is precisely where the greatest paradox of contemporary European security policy (if there is any) lies. A continent devastated by two world wars, a continent that built its post-war institutions precisely to overcome the cycle of military rivalry, is once again embracing a logic in which military power, deterrence, and strategic confrontation are becoming the foundations of political order. Particularly alarming is the fact that the nuclear dimension of this transformation has scarcely become the subject of any meaningful debate.

Europe is gradually turning into a space where nuclear powers are moving ever closer to one another. The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO has significantly altered the strategic geography of Northern Europe. Finland, a country that for decades based its security policy on military neutrality and careful balancing vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, has, following its NATO membership, amended its legal framework to allow for the potential deployment of nuclear capabilities on its territory. At the same time, the Baltic region is becoming one of the most heavily militarized areas in Europe.

At the centre of this new geopolitical anxiety lies Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave situated between Poland and Lithuania and surrounded by NATO member states. For Moscow, it is a crucial strategic bastion; for NATO, it is frequently portrayed as a potential launch point for Russian aggression. Precisely because of its geographical isolation and military significance, Kaliningrad has become the symbol of Europe’s most dangerous zone of confrontation. In this place, a miscalculation, an accident, or a deliberate provocation could trigger a crisis with unforeseeable consequences.

In the run-up to the Ankara Summit, numerous political and intelligence assessments and media speculations circulated, revealing precisely this atmosphere of fear and mutual distrust. One suggested that Russia might attempt to stage a limited incident in the Baltic region or near Poland to ‘test’ NATO, i.e. the Alliance’s political willingness to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

At the same time, an opposite set of speculations also emerged: that heightened tensions surrounding Kaliningrad could themselves become a pretext for false-flag operations, that is, incidents whose true origin would remain unclear but which could generate political pressure for further escalation. In such a scenario, fears of Russian aggression could be used to justify an expanded American military and nuclear presence across Europe.

Such scenarios are far from being facts. Yet their very circulation in the public sphere illustrates how dangerous the prevailing logic of confrontation has become. In an era of hybrid warfare, cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and information warfare, the boundary between objective threats and socially constructed perceptions of insecurity becomes increasingly blurred, creating fertile ground for the political manipulation of fear and the manufacture of consent for further militarisation.

This exposes the fundamental flaws of nuclear deterrence itself. Deterrence assumes rational decision-makers, perfect information, and the ability to control crises. Yet the history of the Cold War demonstrates precisely the opposite. Humanity avoided nuclear catastrophe not because the system was inherently safe, but because, at several critical moments, individual decision-makers refused to act according to the logic of worst-case scenarios. Nuclear peace has never been the product of perfect control. It has been the repeated avoidance of disaster.

Even more troubling is the fact that this logic is no longer confined to Europe. What might be described as a ‘global NATO‘ (although it exists neither formally nor institutionally) is expanding through the so-called nuclear sharing with countries such as Japan, South Korea, etc. Across the Indo-Pacific, just as in Europe, military budgets are rising, new strategic arrangements are being forged, and greater space is being created for an expanded American military (including nuclear) presence. Japan, the only country ever to experience atomic bombing against civilian populations, is steadily moving toward the normalization of military power. South Korea increasingly debates whether to develop its own nuclear capability or rely more heavily on the American nuclear umbrella. Australia, through new security arrangements, has become an integral part of a broader strategy aimed at containing China. In this way, the Orwellian logic of ‘peace through strength’ is being replicated from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean.

The war against Iran in 2025/2026 has produced yet another dangerous consequence that few in the West appear willing to acknowledge. The military campaign was justified as a necessary measure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, yet its political effect may prove exactly the opposite. For many around the world, the lesson is straightforward: states without nuclear weapons remain vulnerable to external military intervention, whereas those possessing a nuclear arsenal enjoy a significant degree of immunity from direct attack. The logic is harsh, but understandable: had Iran already been a nuclear power, the likelihood of such an attack would almost certainly have been much lower. Rather than strengthening the regime of nuclear non-proliferation and ultimately nuclear abolition, this war may encourage other states to conclude that the only genuine guarantee of survival lies in possessing nuclear weapons themselves, even if under someone else’s flag.

This brings us to the central question: does the world become safer simply because it contains more nuclear flashpoints? Or does it become more vulnerable because more actors, more weapons systems, and more lines of confrontation inevitably create more opportunities for miscalculation? The answers, of course, are self-evident.

Under the banner of deterrence and protection, NATO’s European pillar risks becoming trapped in a condition of permanent confrontation. Instead of developing an autonomous European security architecture founded upon cooperation, diplomacy, arms control, and risk reduction, Europe is increasingly becoming a theatre in which the major powers test one another’s resolve.

After the Ankara Summit, therefore, the real question is not whether Europe is ‘in a good place.’ The real question is whether Europe is genuinely becoming safer or merely better armed for a future in which no one will be secure. The most dangerous illusion of the nuclear age is the belief that catastrophe can be controlled simply because it has not occurred for a long time. Genuine security begins precisely where dependence on permanent preparation for war comes to an end.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.Email

Biljana Vankovska

Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia.

Eight Contradictions Behind NATO’s Summit of ‘Love’

by Medea Benjamin | Jul 10, 2026 | 

“I just want to say there was tremendous love in that room,” President Trump declared as he wrapped up the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

But anyone looking beyond the carefully choreographed photo-ops saw an alliance beset by public feuds, competing visions of security, and widening political divisions.

Here are eight contradictions that defined the Ankara summit—and raise fundamental questions about NATO’s future.

1. Military Spending vs. Real Security

NATO leaders had already agreed at the previous summit to move toward spending 5 percent of GDP on military-related expenditures, but Ankara exposed how divisive that commitment remains. Trump used the meeting to chastise allies for failing to meet even the old 2 percent benchmark, arguing that most allies were not paying what they should. Spain became the main target because it refused to commit to the full 5 percent goal, prompting Trump to call it “a terrible partner in NATO” and threaten trade retaliation.

The timing made the debate especially striking. As leaders met to discuss pouring hundreds of billions more into weapons and armies, Europe was enduring one of the most severe heatwaves in its recorded history, with deadly temperatures, wildfires, strained electricity grids, and mounting pressure on public health systems. The contrast raised an unavoidable question: at a time when climate change is already killing people and overwhelming governments, why is the overriding political priority dramatically expanding military budgets instead of investing in the threats people are facing today?

2. NATO Countries Reluctant to Support Trump on Iran

The recent U.S.-Israeli war on Iran cast a long shadow over the summit. While most European leaders continued calling for diplomacy and de-escalation, the summit itself began with renewed U.S. bombing of Iranian targets after attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. During the meeting, Trump declared the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding “over,” dismissed further negotiations as “a waste of time,” and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum.”

Trump also complained that European allies had failed to support Washington’s military campaign, saying, “We are there for them, but they are not there for us.” Spain was among the strongest critics of the war, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused U.S. requests to allow American bases in Spain to be used for offensive operations against Iran. Before the summit, Trump publicly feuded with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni after she likewise refused to allow Italian bases to be used for attacks on Iran. Germany and France also declined to participate militarily.

The contradiction was unmistakable: NATO presents itself as a defensive alliance, yet its most powerful member expected allies to support an offensive war against a country thousands of miles from the North Atlantic that had not attacked a single NATO member.

3. Europe Pushes Support for Ukraine as the United States Pulls Back

Missing from NATO’s final declaration was its previous pledge that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance—a notable concession to Trump’s opposition. Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, first strongly backed by President George W. Bush at the alliance’s 2008 Bucharest summit, has long been one of Russia’s central stated objections and was repeatedly cited by Putin as a justification for the 2022 invasion. Its omission from the declaration reflects a significant shift in NATO’s position.

The declaration pledged roughly $82 billion in military assistance for Ukraine in both 2026 and 2027, but unlike in previous years, the overwhelming share will come from European allies and Canada rather than the United States. After Washington poured well over $100 billion into Ukraine’s war effort, the United States is now stepping back. That reflects a growing sentiment among Trump supporters that the U.S. should stop financing what they see as another endless foreign war. Many European governments, however, continue to see Russia as a direct threat and remain committed to arming Ukraine rather than pushing for a diplomatic solution.

4. Europe Still Wants U.S. Troops While Trump Wants Fewer Overseas Commitments

Before the summit, Trump reportedly floated the idea of reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe by as much as one-third, raising questions about the future of the roughly 80,000–90,000 U.S. troops currently stationed across NATO countries.

While U.S. bases remain deeply controversial among peace movements in NATO countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, their governments continue to regard the U.S. military presence as essential to European security and have resisted calls for their removal. Trump’s willingness to reduce that presence exposed another growing contradiction: many European governments want Washington’s security guarantee to remain firmly in place, while many Americans increasingly question why tens of thousands of U.S. troops should remain stationed in Europe more than three decades after the Cold War ended.

5. Trump Keeps Questioning Denmark’s Sovereignty Over Greenland

Trump again insisted that the United States should control Greenland. Denmark, backed by the rest of NATO, firmly rejected the idea, insisting that Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders and Denmark—not Washington—to decide. Danish officials also note that the United States already enjoys extensive military access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, making U.S. ownership unnecessary to protect its security interests.

At the NATO summit, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reaffirmed that Denmark would “defend every inch” of the Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland, while reiterating that the island is not for sale and that its future must be decided by Greenlanders.

The episode laid bare one of the summit’s sharpest contradictions: an alliance that claims to defend the territorial integrity of its members was forced to confront its most powerful member openly challenging the sovereignty of one of them.

6. Turkey Exposes NATO’s Democracy Dilemma

There was a striking irony in holding NATO’s summit in Turkey. Inside the conference halls, leaders celebrated democracy, freedom, and shared values. Outside, Turkish authorities banned anti-NATO demonstrations and arrested hundreds of protesters, journalists, lawyers, and activists engaged in peaceful protest. Trump praised President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as “a very strong leader,” even as Erdoğan has spent years systematically suppressing dissent, jailing critics, restricting press freedom, and targeting political opponents.

Trump also used the summit to signal his willingness to restore Turkey’s access to advanced U.S. weapons, including the F-35 fighter jet program, from which it had been suspended after purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defense system.

Turkey, however, is hardly unique. Across NATO countries, governments that proclaim their commitment to democracy and human rights have increasingly cracked down on dissent, particularly pro-Palestinian activism. From police raids and protest restrictions to arrests, prosecutions, and efforts to silence critics in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, NATO governments have repeatedly shown that democratic freedoms become conditional when they collide with political and strategic priorities.

7. Europe Is Expected to Defend Itself—but Still Rely on NATO

One question lingered behind the scenes throughout the summit: if Europe is now expected to invest more in its military, pay for the war in Ukraine, and prepare for a reduced U.S. military presence, what exactly is NATO’s future role? European leaders continue to describe the alliance as indispensable, but Washington increasingly expects Europe to stand on its own while remaining available to support U.S.-led military operations elsewhere.

That contradiction is fueling a broader debate across Europe. If Europeans are expected to pay more, defend themselves, and shoulder greater responsibility for their own security, why should they remain dependent on an alliance dominated by Washington?

8. Should NATO Still Exist?

The biggest question hanging over the Ankara summit was not inside the conference halls but in the streets: should NATO still exist? Created in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union, the alliance steadily expanded its mission long after the Cold War ended, intervening in places from the Balkans to Afghanistan and increasingly projecting military power far beyond its original mandate.

The protests in Ankara were part of a broader international movement represented by the No to NATO Network, which brings together peace organizations across NATO countries calling for the alliance to be replaced with a common security architecture based on diplomacy, disarmament, and cooperation.

Trump’s claim that there was “tremendous love in that room” may have made for a memorable soundbite, but it bore little resemblance to the summit itself. Ankara exposed an alliance divided over military spending, Ukraine, Iran, democracy, sovereignty, and even its own purpose.

For peace activists across NATO countries, those contradictions only reinforce what they have argued for decades: Europe needs a new security architecture based on diplomacy, arms control, common security, and cooperation, while the United States needs a foreign policy that relies on diplomacy rather than militarism. For them, the ultimate lesson is clear: the time has come to dissolve NATO and replace it with a security system that reduces tensions instead of fueling arms races and preparing for endless war.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

The US Has Been Violating MoU With Iran From Day One

by Muhammad Sahimi | Jul 10, 2026 | 

The fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States has been broken once again. The United States has been bombing Iran, claiming that its attacks are in retaliation for Iran attacking three vessels near Straight of Hormuz, which it considers as violation of the Islamabad agreement, officially known as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two nations.

But it is in fact the United States that has been violating the MoU because its interpretation of Article 5 of the MoU is simply false. According to Article 5 of the MoU, Iran is obligated to

“Make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The statement is unambiguous, and cannot be interpreted in any way other than Iran, in collaboration with Oman, is the party responsible for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It also clearly distinguishes a temporary arrangement for 60 days, and the long-term traffic regime in the Strait. Therefore, any vessel passing through the Strait must coordinate it with Iran, as well as Oman.

But this is not what the United States has been doing. In an effort to test Iran’s resolve for its control of the Strait, and to weaken it, Arab States of the Persian Gulf and  others, with direct support of the United States, dispatched several commercial vessels to pass through Oman’s territorial water without any coordination with, or even informing, Iran. They had even turned off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders to evade Iran. This is in clear violation of Article 5, which Iran will not accept. Indeed, no self-respecting nation will.

This view is fully supported by Article 4 of the MoU:

“Immediately upon the signing this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

In other words, it is Iran that should restore the vessel traffic through the Strait to its pre-war level. Thus, once again, no vessel can pass through the Strait, unless it is coordinated with Iran, at least as one of the two parties specified by Article 5.

The United States cannot also invoke, at least during the 60 days period, the claim that Oman, a sovereign nation, has decided on its own to allow passages of vessels through its territorial waters in the southern part of the Strait, because Oman is not a party to the MOU. In other words, the United States cannot take actions through a non-party in order to bypass its obligations under the MoU. If this act were to become the standard practice, then, what would be the point of consultation and negotiations between Iran and man, which the MOU specifies?

A review of the MoU’s other Articles still buttresses the view expressed above.  According to Article 14, the permanent maritime regime in the Strait of Hormuz will be endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. This is supposed to happen after the conclusion of negotiations between Iran and the United States, signing an agreement. In other words, until such times as when that endorsement is secured, which will happen after the negotiations are completed, the MOU is in force, unless another interim agreement is agreed upon.

The United Stats cannot also claim that it is protecting the right to free navigation in international waters. Aside from the fact that the U.S. does not have such a mandate by the United Nation Security Council, the fact is that at its narrowest point, the Strait is only 21 miles (34 km)  wide. The international conventions on the law of sea have recognized the first 12 nautical miles (roughly 22 km) of any water adjacent to a state as its territorial sea. Iran obtained sovereign rights on its territorial sea since the first convention was adopted by the United Nations in 1959. Oman, which is on the opposite side of the Strait, has claimed the same, which means the two territorial waters overlap, leaving no residual in between as “international waters.” All universally agreed international law standards provide that any otherwise implication on the passage of vessels through Iran’s territorial water, arising from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, does not adversely affect Iran’s sovereign rights because Iran has not ratified the latter convention, although it has signed it.

Aside from all such considerations, there is another crucial aspect that the Trump administration must consider, if it is serious to reach a long-term agreement with Iran. Iran’s hardliners have opposed the MoU and have even issued death threats against the chief Iranian architectures of the MoU, namely, President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Speaker of the Majles [parliament] Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Hardliners’ emotions have been running high this week due to the funeral processions of the late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the extent that they physically assaulted the President and Araghchi. Bombing Iran during such times will only prove to them once again that what Khamenei repeated over the years, that “the United States cannot be trusted,” is true, making a future long-term agreement that much harder to reach.

Both Iran and the United States should take a long view of the current state of affairs. After decades of economic sanctions, two illegal wars, and constant threats by the United States against Iran, Iran remain steadfast in defending its sovereign rights. There is for the first time a real opportunity for the two nations to reach accommodation, which will be greatly beneficial to the entire Middle East, and world peace. They should not squander the chance for real peace over disputes that, although they may seem significant now, they will have no significance if a long-term agreement between the two nations can be reached.

Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and the NIOC Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California, is co-founder and editor of the website, Iran News & Middle East Reports.

Op-Ed

The Investigation Into the Minab Elementary School Bombing Is Done. Where Is It?

The Trump administration is stonewalling the public about the US’s deadliest strike on civilians in decades.

By Etan Mabourakh , 

Truthout

July 10, 2026

Bodies of children are carried to their graves during a funeral held on March 3, 2026, in Minab, Iran, for students killed in the U.S.-Israeli strike on an elementary school in Minab on February 28, 2026.Iranian press handout / Getty Images

New details are emerging about the U.S. attack on the Minab school that killed 168 people — and yet the Trump administration continues to stonewall and is refusing to release findings, even as CNN reports that U.S. military officials knew within days what happened.

Here’s what we know: On the morning of February 28, 2026, the first day of “Operation Epic Fury,” the United States bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, a small city in southern Iran. At least 168 people were killed — the majority of them girls between the ages of 7 and 12. More than 100 children and staff were wounded. By any measure, it was one of the deadliest single strikes on civilians in the history of U.S. military operations in recent decades.

But more than four months later, the U.S. government continues to stonewall the public over who is responsible for this horrific crime, and if anyone will be held accountable.

CNN just reported that U.S. commanders bypassed warnings about outdated targeting data ahead of the strike. Satellite imagery analyzed by NPR showed that the school, while adjacent to an Iranian naval base, had been walled off from that facility and operating as a functioning school since at least 2016. A New York Times analysis concluded that U.S. forces most likely struck the school amid attacks on that naval base. And critically, Reuters reported that U.S. military investigators themselves believed U.S. forces were likely responsible.


CNN just reported that U.S. commanders bypassed warnings about outdated targeting data ahead of the strike.

Neither the United States nor the Israeli government has taken public responsibility. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, when asked about the strike on March 4, said only: “All I know, all I can say, is that we’re investigating that.” He offered no commitment to transparency or accountability, and no timeline for the investigation. He also said that Operation Epic Fury would have “no stupid rules of engagement” and described U.S. military operations as delivering “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” President Donald Trump, when asked directly about the strike, said he doesn’t think it was the United States and that he doesn’t know if we are “ever going to solve that problem.”

On Mother’s Day, I Will Mourn Alongside the Grieving Parents of Minab
The first Mother’s Day proclamation was a call to disarm. It’s more crucial than ever to honor the day’s antiwar roots. By Negin Owliaei , Truthout  May 10, 2026

Some in Congress Have Demanded Answers

In the weeks that followed the Minab bombing, some members of Congress moved swiftly to demand accountability. On March 11, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) led a letter signed by more than 40 senators to Secretary Hegseth, demanding a full investigation into the Minab strike and pressing the administration on its compliance with the law of armed conflict. The letter raised pointed questions: Did U.S. forces conduct the strikes? What was the intended target? Were AI tools used in targeting? Was a “no-strike list” established before operations began? The senators requested answers from Hegseth by March 18, 2026.


The American people are owed the truth. So are the families in Minab.

The following day, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-California) led a letter signed by more than 150 House lawmakers raising alarm over the broader civilian toll in Iran — over 1,000 Iranians killed by early March. The letter called out the administration’s systematic dismantling of the institutions built to prevent exactly this kind of harm: budget cuts at CENTCOM, the firing of senior military lawyers responsible for compliance with the laws of war, and the gutting of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. Jacobs publicly demanded accountability during a congressional hearing as well. None of these letters received the substantive responses they demanded.

This week, on July 5, a group of senators and House members — including Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Duckworth, Patty Murray, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andy Kim, Mark Kelly, Jason Crow, and Sara Jacobs — pressed Secretary Hegseth on the Inspector General’s findings in a May report raising new concerns about failure to uphold civilian harm mitigation responsibilities. The lawmakers argue that Hegseth is putting service members and Department of Defense missions “at risk by gutting civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) efforts and that the DoD no longer has the ‘personnel and capabilities’ required to comply with the law and its congressionally-mandated CHMR responsibilities.”

The Investigation Is Finished. Where Is It?

By May, there was reason to believe the military’s internal review was nearing completion. CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters that the probe into the Minab school strike was near its conclusion. And yet no findings have been released publicly. Some reports indicate the investigation has been submitted but has remained stalled under review from CENTCOM, raising concerns that it’s being stonewalled for political purposes. The investigation appears complete — and buried.

Congress could use the National Defense Authorization Act to require the declassified release of the investigation’s findings.

Meanwhile, the above-mentioned May 13, 2026 report from the Pentagon’s own Inspector General found that the Department of Defense had systematically failed to implement its Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP). All eleven objectives of the plan — once making progress — were reclassified as “at risk.” The IG found that the legally-mandated Civilian Protection Center of Excellence lacked key staff and leadership. Officials from the Joint Staff told the IG that gutting these programs “harms readiness” and increases the risk of “civilian casualties, damaged coalitions and alliances, loss of legitimacy, increased local resistance.”

Accountability Will Require Transparency

This is not a complicated question of law or politics. The investigation is done. People in the U.S. have a right to know how this happened, why it happened and how we can prevent it from ever happening again. The children killed at that school deserve far more than silence.

There are clear vehicles through which lawmakers can — and should — act. Congress could use the National Defense Authorization Act to require the declassified release of the investigation’s findings. Lawmakers can attach explicit reporting requirements to defense legislation, forcing public disclosure. And members of Congress, as they have already begun to do, can continue raising these questions in hearings and in letters until this administration can no longer ignore them.

What is not acceptable is the current state of affairs: an investigation reportedly completed, a president who says he doesn’t think it was us, a defense secretary who has openly dismissed the rules designed to prevent war crimes, and 168 people — most of them schoolgirls — whose deaths have received no official accounting.

The American people are owed the truth. So are the families in Minab.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Etan Mabourakh

Etan Mabourakh is the national organizing manager at the National Iranian American Council, where he organizes grassroots volunteers through a nationwide chapter network and coalitions across the United States. A Jewish Iranian American based in New York, Etan has consulted on campaigns at every level of government, speaks frequently on U.S.–Iran policy, as well as civil rights and antiwar advocacy.

Out of time: Expert says America may be nearing its point of no return

Sarah K. Burris 

July 11, 2026 

ALTERNET

Canadian lawyer and author Omer Aziz is warning Americans that fascism has not only arrived, but it's also been alive and well in the U.S. for some time. The real chore is in ending it before it goes too far.

In his book Shadow of the Republic, Aziz explains that it appears the pro-fascist group “is using the machinery of constitutional government in a partisan way to make it subservient to the political party and then to turn it against ordinary citizens, dissidents, free thinkers, journalists."

It's something that horror writer and anti-fascist activist Stephen King explained, "should be an alarm bell announcing that the American house is on fire."


Speaking to Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan, Aziz walked through America's long flirtation with fascism that is too often glossed over in a history that prizes American exceptionalism above reality.

“By the time the fascists are building the camps, it’s already too late and we have lost," Hasan read from the book. It prompted him to ask just how close the U.S. is.


Aziz said that currently, Trump likes to "cosplay as a fascist," using things like his "weaponization fund" and "the prosecution of political enemies" as examples. Republicans dismiss such claims as hyperbolic and symptoms of the imagined "Trump derangement syndrome" or "paranoid liberals."

But Aziz said there is "substance" to the claim.

"I think when you look at Trump's rhetoric around poisoning the blood of immigrants and some of the language he has used and his team has used, they're clearly drawing from this common wellspring of influence and inspiration. At the same time, I would say, he is an opportunist. I think he likes the idea of himself thinking of himself as a Mussolini or someone of a strongman character. But in terms of the rabid ideology, I don't think he has that."

He explained that it's important to understand that the emergence of Fascism is different from every society. Germany, for example, was very different from Italian fascists and American fascists are also different. For Trump, his fascism is "particularly American."

Hasan noted the administration declaring "antifa" a terrorist group while conservative states throw the book at peaceful protesters.

Aziz said that these kinds of arrests, even of non-violent protesters, will continue as Trump and his ilk continue to lose their political battles.


"They will use the state and politicize it to destroy and dismantle their political opponents who are exercising their free speech rights right and we're seeing this across the board: the weaponization the prosecution of political enemies," he said. "This is clearly part of the fascist playbook and we need to be clear here because there is a cultural side of this. There's a far-right influencer far-right protester side of this. The Jan. 6 folks, for example."

The more dangerous part of fascism, he said, isn't the obvious ones waving Nazi flags in the street. Aziz called the "fascists in suits" far more of a threat to American ideals, because they are the ones using that machinery of government to subvert the citizenry, just as Italy and Germany did with journalists and dissidents.

One group he talks about in the book that Hasan said he found particularly interesting is the younger spectrum of voters who are growing more attracted to fascism, Nazism and white supremacy.

Aziz said it's even starting to pop up with young men of color, whether South Asian or Latino.


"I think the reason why that's happening is because neoliberal economic policy has failed young people, in particular," he said. "Whether that's the financial crisis, whether that is the enormous amounts of greed, outsourcing of industries. And then, of course, the wars on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan."

He said that it makes it easy to drift further right.

"There's an analogy here to young men who would join ISIS, for example, 10 years ago," Aziz continued. "Again when you don't have something within your community within your body politic that supports and uplifts you, it becomes a lot more tempting."

40 Epstein-Tied Billionaires Have Injected $1.6B Into US Elections, Report Finds


Over 80 percent of this spending went toward Republicans or conservative causes, a new analysis finds.

By Sharon Zhang ,

Truthout

July 9, 2026

Billionaires with ties to Jeffrey Epstein have spent nearly $1.6 billion on influencing U.S. elections since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed a deluge of such spending on the electoral system, a new report finds, demonstrating the vast power over politics held by the so-called Epstein class.

Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund reveals in a new report Thursday that 40 billionaires and billionaire families with ties to Epstein have injected over $1.57 billion into U.S. elections since 2010.

According to the group’s analysis, 84 percent of this spending, or over $1.3 billion, went toward Republicans or conservative causes.

This is despite a roughly even split between Republicans and Democrats among the billionaires, which include people who formerly donated to the Clinton family. Only 7 percent went toward Democrats and aligned causes, while the remaining money went toward lobbying efforts that target members of both parties like AI and Israel.

The report includes spending from people like President Donald Trump, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Elon Musk, current U.S. ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, Jared Kushner, and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, among many other prominent figures across the business, tech, and sports sectors. The ties to the convicted child sex offender range from mentions in Epstein’s black book or in the Epstein files to extensive business and personal relationships, like Trump’s reported close friendship with Epstein.


New Billionaire Jared Kushner Is Mired in Conflicts of Interest as “Peace Envoy”
Jared Kushner, like the rest of the Trump family, uses the White House for personal enrichment. By Derek Seidman , Truthout June 12, 2026

Trump’s various presidential campaigns and super PACs supporting him have received $282 million from this group of Epstein-connected billionaires, the analysis found.

“Our tax and political system is badly broken, and nothing illustrates this more than billionaires with credible ties to Jeffrey Epstein continuing to spend millions to exert their influence on American democracy,” said David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund, in a statement. “We can’t allow billionaires to keep undermining our economy and democracy.”

The report suggests that it was, in fact, Epstein’s own personal wealth that helped him to avoid consequences for his sex trafficking and assault for so long.

“Jeffrey Epstein himself was worth upwards of $600 million, and that wealth translated into sweetheart deals and avoiding serious jail time for far too long. Now the billionaire class are using their wealth to insulate themselves against the consequences of their actions, the same way Epstein did,” the group wrote.

The Adelsons ranked as the top spenders in the group’s analysis, spending $745 million on elections since 2010. All of that went toward conservative causes, the group found. The Adelsons, known for their outspoken support of Israel, are mentioned in the Epstein files “hundreds” of times, the report notes.

The next highest spender is Elon Musk and his brother, Kimbal Musk, who have spent $365 million on elections. Elon Musk infamously spent over $250 million to help get Trump elected in 2024, and has had direct contact numerous times with Epstein.

Despite this enormous spending on elections, the money spent by this group in the last 16 years represents only 0.09 percent of their collective wealth. Elon Musk recently became the world’s first-ever trillionaire after the opening of SpaceX as a public company last month.

Comedian destroys 'League of Extraordinary Virgins' threatening the nation

A commuter sits as members of the group Patriot Front ride the metro on the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence on the Fourth of July in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 4, 2026. REUTERS/Cheney Orr

Adam Lynch

July 10, 2026 

ALTERNET

“Several days later and I can’t help it. It’s too funny,” said comedian John Fugelsang of white supremacist militia group, the "Patriot Front," marching through the streets of Capitol Hill on the 250th birthday of the United States. Videos showed that a few hundred men showed up with face coverings, waving Confederate flags along with American flags, including some that were inverted.

But Fugelsang couldn’t get over other aspects of their appearance, calling them the “Dockers Reich; aka March of the Masked Mediocrities; aka The League of Extraordinary Virgins.”

“Did you catch it? Day of the Living Incels?” asked Fugelsang on his substack. “A quarter-millennium after the US declared that all men are created equal, a few hundred masked white nationalists decided the best way to celebrate was to march through Washington, D.C., hiding their faces and waving Confederate flags. And what could be more MAGA than celebrating America’s birthday with participation trophies from the losing side of the Civil War, while dressing like you’re all headed to the same outlet mall. All of them in Khakis, all of them wearing masks.”


“These guys always say, ‘We’re defending Western civilization.’ Yeah, Skip? Then why do y’all always look like you’re trying to avoid being recognized by your manager at Best Buy?” Fugelsang demanded. “It’s hard to square ‘take our country back’ with ‘please don’t tag me in the photos.’”

The comedian acknowledged that he’s supposed to be shaking his head in anguish about the normalization of racism and the “big victory goose-step” after all the cultural erasure and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. But the scenery was just too funny. “Instead, beautifully, it was more of a White Supremacy Cowardice flash mob; sponsored by Dockers and parental disappointment,” said the host of progressive talk show "Tell Me Everything.”


“Let’s briefly discuss the Klan Bake wardrobe choices: All khakis, all blue shirts. It’s the world’s most aggressively beige fascist movement,” he said. “Every single one of these tough guy patriots looked like they were headed to an assistant manager orientation at Kohl’s. I mean, I know they’re the Fourth Reich and all, but I kept expecting them to ask pedestrians if they’d ever considered opening a store credit card.”

"The John Fugelsang Podcast" host also blasted the absurdity of a group claiming to be “patriots” while carrying flags of the Confederacy, which literally tried to destroy America.

“The Confederacy only lasted four years, bros. Costco memberships last longer,” said Fugelsang. “You’re still the only team in history whose fans get more enthusiastic every century after losing.”


But that’s what you get from a group of folks dressed like they’re “robbing a Hobby Lobby” despite being proud of their beliefs.

“If your movement is destined to save America, it’s curious that nobody in it wants their boss to know they attended,” Fugelsang chided. “… Imagine believing you’re the superior race, while literally covering up your face more than Batman.”

Only Batman was worried about crooks hurting his loved ones,” he added. These guys are afraid of “an email” identifying them to their boss.


The movement calls itself “patriotic heritage enthusiasts,” but Fugelsang said they’re just “unmanly racist twits.”

“You’re Nazis; with better graphic designers and pleats in your chinos,” Fugelsang howled. “Patriot Front is a racist pyramid scheme, wrapped in Old Navy. But calling themselves ‘America’s Masked Chickens—— Ethnostate Appreciation Society’ apparently tested poorly with focus groups.”

'I think he's dead': Mitch McConnell pulls a 'Franco'

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) on November 15, 2022

 (Consolidated News Photos/Shutterstock.com)

Adam Lynch

July 11, 2026  

ALTERNET

The Guardian reports mystery is still surrounding the health of Sen Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as Congress prepares to return from recess next week.

McConnell, 84, has not been seen in public since he was admitted to a Washington hospital in June 14. Nearly a month later, the Kentucky Republican’s office has released so little information that speculation is swirling about the possibility of her permanent absence while his office claims he is “continuing to improve.”

“Emergency dispatch audio obtained by media outlets indicates that first responders were sent to his home following reports of an unconscious person and that CPR was under way. On Friday, CNN released video footage that showed a person on a stretcher being wheeled towards an ambulance, though their face was not visible,” the Guardian reports.

“I think he’s dead,” said Malcolm Nance, a career counter-terrorism intelligence officer on the Truth in the Barrel podcast. “It’s very clear. I heard that 911 tape and I was an EMT when I was in the military at one point and you know we used to do CPR a lot. One of the things that teach you about CPR is the probability of coming back from CPR is very, very, very small.”

The show is hosted by Amy McGrath, who lost to McConnell in 2020. McGrath, a former marine fighter pilot, replied: “Well, it’s an interesting take. We’ll see what happens there as well.”

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that what is currently happening is unelected staff is running things for the voters of Kentucky, consulting with Congress and making decisions in his absence.

“But while he is incapacitated – and I go back to Feinstein, there are staff who are basically making decisions on behalf of the people of Kentucky, said Reed Galen, president of JoinTheUnion.us, a pro-democracy coalition. “These are all people with pretty significant political equities of their own. We saw this, frankly, with President Biden’s people. It’s the next example of a gerontocracy in Washington DC that thinks more of itself than it does of its people.”

Should McConnell remain in office but be unable to return before January, there is little constitutional remedy, reports the Guardian. “Senate rules do not permit proxy voting, meaning Republicans simply lose one vote whenever he is absent.”

His resignation or death would create an even more complicated situation, thanks to Republican greed in Kentucky. Seeking to nullify Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, the Republican-dominated legislature in 2024 eliminated the governor’s power to appoint a temporary replacement, meaning any vacancy now triggers a special election. But the Guardian reports the timing of the election remains legally untested, and it could become the subject of court challenges. Depending on when a vacancy occurred, the seat could potentially remain empty until the new Congress is sworn in next January.

The governor is already demanding an update to McConnell’s condition.

Author and pollster John Zogby told the Guardian that the situation resembles the touchy state of things in fascist Spain just a few decades ago.

“This in some ways reminds me of Generalissimo Franco in the 1970s, who was reported to be unawake but still alive, and no one believed it after about six weeks, because they hadn’t figured out a transition yet in Spain,” said Zogby.

'He’s so dead': Critics erupt as wife of stricken senator appears to shop new carpet

Adam Lynch

July 10, 2026

ALTERNET

Critics on social media had a meltdown over images of a contractor leaving Sen. Mitch McConnell’s house with carpet and tile samples.

“Our intrepid TMZ DC producer Charlie Cotton paid a visit to the Senator's home Friday to see if he could get any answers on Mitch's health ... and he saw something interesting leaving the house,” reported TMZ.

Mitch has been hospitalized since June 14 after paramedics responded to a report of an unconscious person in his Washington, D.C. home. Footage obtained by CNN shows paramedics piling the stricken Kentucky senator.


TMZ reports paramedics appeared to be “showing absolutely no sense of urgency” — suggesting the senator was about as stable as dead can get.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene told us Mitch is a vegetable and his "Communist Chinese spy" wife is meeting with Chinese leaders instead of rushing home to be by his bedside,” TMZ added. “Meanwhile, Scott Jennings says the 84-year-old politician was lucid enough to have a conversation for ‘just shy of 20 minutes’ about current events.

But critics on X exploded at the images of carpet samples.

“Ah yeah … you know when your husband is in hospital, it’s the perfect time to book that contractor to come sell carpet samples,” said professor Adam Cochran on X. “This is all so weird.”

“He’s so dead,” quipped another critic.


“Hollywood will make a movie about this someday,” announced another X heckler. “Just watch.

Other online comedians quickly hopped on the suggestion of post-mortem floor stains.

“Blood is hard to get out of carpets,” said one X user.


“Does he have burgundy?” asked another.

TMZ reports even President Trump has "no idea" how Sen. Mitch McConnell is doing, at least as of a couple of days ago.

“Whatever Mitch's status is, seems new flooring are a top priority,” TMZ reports.

New bombshell video shows Mitch McConnell loaded into ambulance on a stretcher

Roxanne Cooper

July 10, 2026 | 

ALTERNET


Video footage obtained and verified by CNN shows emergency responders loading what appears to be Senator Mitch McConnell onto a stretcher and into an ambulance outside his Washington, D.C., home on the morning of June 14, after the 84-year-old Kentucky Republican was found unconscious.

The clip, filmed from a distance that obscures McConnell's face, depicts responders lifting the senator into the back of the ambulance. A neighbor who witnessed the scene told CNN that when they asked officers what had happened, they were told only that there had been a "medical emergency."

The neighbor added a striking detail: emergency responders showed no signs of urgency in loading McConnell into the vehicle.


"In a situation where perhaps time is of the essence, there seems to be a little bit more urgency, but there was no urgency here," the neighbor said.

Another witness told CNN they observed McConnell's feet protruding from the stretcher as it was being carried from his home roughly 30 minutes after ambulances first arrived at the residence. The witness noted that the feet were "not moving" and that McConnell was not wearing an oxygen mask.


"He's in a stretcher, and he's in some sort of orange foam-looking blanket type thing," the neighbor recalled.

The ambulance departed without activating its sirens, according to witnesses at the scene.

McConnell, who required CPR at the scene, has remained hospitalized for weeks. His office has offered no substantive updates on his medical condition, current treatment, or whether the 84-year-old will be able to resume his Senate duties. The senator has made no public statements since his hospitalization, leaving constituents and colleagues alike in the dark about his prognosis.


McConnell's apparent incapacity creates a significant vacuum in Republican Senate leadership at a critical moment for the GOP. As Senate Minority Leader, McConnell has wielded substantial influence over Republican strategy and messaging, particularly on issues of party discipline and judicial appointments. His prolonged absence raises urgent questions about the succession of power within Senate Republican ranks and the direction the party will take on key legislative priorities.

The lack of transparency from McConnell's office has fueled worry among lawmakers and staffers about who is making critical decisions on the senator's behalf. Senate rules do not require formal notification of incapacity, leaving McConnell's voting power and decision-making authority in an ambiguous state during a pivotal election cycle. If McConnell cannot return to active duty, Republicans may face an internal power struggle to fill the leadership void.