Iran Weathering The Storm, But Saudi Arabia Is Sinking

 Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

Middle East upheaval is already underway: “You will not recognize it in two years time”

[…]

Owing to financial strains, demographics, military failures, and simmering domestic discontent, it may only be a question of magnitude. That is, will Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) be removed by fellow members of the House of Saud, or will the 94-year-old kingdom collapse altogether? Most likely, we’ll see both things happen in fairly rapid succession.


To understand why Saudi Arabia is in danger of falling apart, it’s important to first understand what’s been holding it together since Ibn Saud united a land of many tribes into a huge new state in 1932:

  • Power-sharing across the branches of the Saudi royal family. Traditionally, authorities were shared among many senior princes, with their ministries providing each with a base of power and a well of patronage to tap. Major decisions were made by consensus, consistent with the Islamic principle of shura, which is expressly encouraged by the Quran.
  • The integration of the Wahhabi religious establishment into Saudi government. Wahhabism is an austere and puritanical variant of Sunni Islam that arose in central Arabia in the 18th century and came to dominate it. In exchange for the Wahhabists’ bestowing of religious legitimacy on the monarchy, the Wahhabi religious authorities — or ulema — were given authority to guide schools, run charitable entities and enforce social norms.
  • Tribal loyalty given in exchange for patronage and influence. The Arabian peninsula is home to dozens of tribes, with histories stretching back several hundred years or more…Tribes have helped maintain internal peace by recognizing the monarchy’s authority, and by acting as mediators of disputes, and negotiators of access to tribal land and resources.

Everything changed when MBS became crown prince in 2017, as he radically concentrated power and decision-making in his own hands and those of a tight circle of trusted allies, to the detriment of the tribes and other members of the royal family.

[…]

In one of his first moves, MBS rounded up hundreds of Saudi royals and top business leaders and imprisoned them in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton hotel. Most of them were reportedly abused, both psychologically and physically. Seventeen were hospitalized, and a major general died in custody. Faced with corruption accusations, detainees secured their freedom by forking over $107 billion, according to the claims of Saudi officials.

MBS also provoked the Wahhabi ulema, as he undertook an agenda of liberalization and Westernization aimed at improving Saudi Arabia’s image and keeping the country’s youth content. These moves included allowing women to drive cars, ending the requirement for traveling women to have male guardians, relaxing women’s dress codes, re-opening cinemas after a decades-long ban, and allowing rock concerts and art festivals. “He has offended virtually every constituency of the royal family,” Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said on Judging Freedom. “He’s also offended the reactionary religious establishment, so he’s made a hell of a lot of enemies.”

MBS’s concentration of power isn’t entirely self-serving. His power grab was driven in part by a sense of urgency as Saudi Arabia stares down a looming financial disaster, which is rooted in the nature of the Saudi state, and exacerbated by its demographics.

Like many other states in the region, Saudi Arabia is an example of a rentier state — a state that derives the great majority of its revenue from sale of resources to other countries, rather than from the taxation of domestic economic and entrepreneurial activity.

[…]

Rentier states are put in danger when revenue becomes insufficient to sustain the flow of money to the people. For Saudi Arabia, two variables have been moving in dangerous directions: the population has grown by leaps and bounds since the 1970s, and oil revenues haven’t kept up.

[…]

A primary means by which the Saudi government has distributed wealth — and prevented idleness that facilitates mischief — is government employment. As of 2016, an extraordinary two-thirds of employed Saudis held government jobs, and their salaries consumed 40% of the kingdom’s budget.

Government jobs’ domination of a market becomes a self-sustaining phenomenon. Private industry struggles to hire workers who’d prefer the lower demands, higher pay and greater job security of a government job. That, in turn, inhibits the growth of a private sector that could reduce the need for a large and costly public sector.

Recognizing the need to completely re-engineer the Saudi economy and relieve its reliance on oil money, MBS in 2016 unveiled “Vision 2030,” with a goal of spurring private-sector investment and employment, and improving the quality of life for Saudi citizens.

[…]

One by one, Vision 2030 projects meant to dazzle the world have gone dim as the 2030 due date grows closer. The ski resort, which was supposed to host the 2028 Asian Winter games, has been put on ice. The Line has been suspended, leaving only a few kilometers of construction and a 70-mile-long trench. The colossal cubic skyscraper has been halted after initial excavation and installation of foundation pilings.

[…]

As MBS’s grand visions evaporate, they’re increasingly regarded as wasteful vanity projects that have only worsened Saudi Arabia’s situation. Questions about his judgment aren’t confined to economic matters — his military decisions have been even worse.

After his appointment as Saudi defense minister in 2015, MBS immediately sought to establish his military credentials by intervening in Yemen’s civil war, which had seen that country’s Saudi-allied government ousted from the capital by Ansar Allah, a Zaidi Shia group widely referred to as “the Houthis.”

It was an enormous failure. Even with refueling, arms and other assistance provided by the United States, the Saudi intervention failed to defeat Ansar Allah. It also inflicted enormous damage on Saudi Arabia’s reputation, as bombings routinely caused mass casualties among Yemeni civilians, and a Saudi blockade created one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters.

Saudi Arabia finally joined a truce in 2022. Despite his earlier humiliation, MBS stirred things back up again in July of this year, violating the truce by bombing an airport in Yemen’s capital to prevent a Yemeni delegation from landing in an Iranian jet, after attending the funeral of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei.

What followed has been devastating to Saudi Arabia. Ansar Allah retaliated, declaring the imposition of a blockade on Saudi Arabia to counter the Saudi blockade on Yemen. Furthering their ability to make good on that promise, Ansar Allah unleashed an offensive in which they rapidly seized the remainder of Yemen’s west coast, positioning their forces to easily threaten Saudi shipping entering the Red Sea via the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Worse, Ansar Allah has taken the battle into Saudi territory, repeatedly inflicting damage on oil and gas facilities.

[…]

The destruction resulting from MBS’s renewal of the war in Yemen comes on top of damage caused by Iran, which has deemed any country that hosts US forces as fair targets for retaliation. Some analysts predict it will take seven to 10 years to replace all the specialized oil and gas equipment and fully restore production.

The physical damage from missiles and drones will be hard enough to repair, but the most enduring damage may have been inflicted on Saudi Arabia’s reputation as a safe place to visit and to open businesses — directly undercutting the kingdom’s quest to attract foreign investment and remake its economy.

[…]

“MBS has staked everything on Vision 2030, the promise that Saudi Arabia will become a global hub for business, tourism, sport and investment,” writes former CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson. “Every one of those businesses depends on one thing: the perception that the kingdom is safe. The Houthis are attacking that perception directly.”

As bad as the military situation is for Saudi Arabia and MBS, it may get far worse. As Ansar Allah continues to expand its control of Yemen — where the group already has the capital and territory in which 70 to 80% of Yemenis live — there’s growing wariness the group could retake three provinces from southwest Saudi Arabia that were historically part of Yemen, but were annexed by Saudi Arabia in 1934.

With Saudi Arabia facing increasingly dire circumstances, MBS could be targeted for removal by those who see him as incapable of steering the kingdom out of peril. There are Saudi precedents for that. Faulted for extravagant personal spending and poor management of the kingdom’s finances, King Saud al Saud saw his powers reduced in the late 1950s. Then, in 1964, he was dethroned in a bloodless coup organized by his younger brother, Crown Prince Faisal, who became king.

Eleven years later, King Faisal was himself removed from power — in bloody fashion. In 1975, after returning from a trip to the United States, he was shot to death by his nephew Prince Faisal bin Musaid, who was apparently outraged by the king’s drive to Westernize and liberalize Saudi Arabia. Revenge was also thought to be a factor, as the prince’s brother was killed in 1966 amid a violent protest of the introduction of television to the kingdom.

In October, there were reports that MBS was moving from bomb shelter to bomb shelter beneath heavily-guarded palaces. “[Supposedly] for fear of a Houthi assassination,” Alistair Crooke told Judge Napolitano. “Actually, what he’s frightened of is an assassination by one of his own family or a military officer.”

“There’s a long history in the Arab world of the overthrow of monarchy,” Freeman noted. “It’s facilitated because Islam, in the Holy Quran, is actually very much against monarchy.

As Saudi Arabia’s condition weakens, its political and economic landscape has become fertile ground for countless seeds of discontent:
  • Vision 2030 construction projects have forced thousands from their homes and granted compensation that many say is far too little.
  • Government jobs have lost some of their luster; pay raises are harder to come by, and limits on overtime and annual leave have been imposed.
  • Citizens who were accustomed to a largely tax-free existence are getting a taste of non-rentier-state life: In 2018, Saudi Arabia adopted a 5% Value Added Tax and later tripled it to 15%.
  • Saudi royals — which number between 15,000 and 25,000 — have seen their perks and stipends reduced, forcing many of them to sell homes, yachts and art to raise cash. Princes who were subjected to abuse at the Ritz-Carlton and the confiscation of their assets are likely yearning for revenge.
  • Resentments are growing over uneven financial treatment. Crooke offers an illustrative example of two military officers working side by side: one, a highly-placed tribal member who isn’t well-paid, the other a royal of the same rank whose income is padded by a stipend.
  • Military cohesion and operational efficiency has been impaired by the silo-ization of the various service branches — which is meant to reduce the ease with which a coup could be mounted. “[MBS] has divided the military, set them against one another, [and] used the National Guard to keep an eye out for any disaffection within the army,” explained Crooke.
  • Though often characterized as a Sunni country, Saudi Arabia has a significant Shiite minority, accounting for about 12% of the population. Critically, they’re concentrated in two important areas: Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region, which is the center of the kingdom’s oil production, and Saudi Arabia’s southwest corner, adjacent to the Shiite population in northwest Yemen, where Ansar Allah rules.
  • The kingdom faces reputational damage and a major financial hit that’s likely to arise in a US civil suit in which victims of the 9/11 attacks are building an overwhelming case that Saudi government officials aided the Al Qaeda plotters.
  • MBS’s marginalization of the Wahhabi religious establishment holds great peril. Clerics may no longer tell their followers to ignore the lavish royal lifestyles that violate the core tenets of Wahhabism, setting the stage for a radical Islamic insurrection.

Saudi Arabia isn’t alone among Middle East countries in facing the likelihood of major upheaval. Other Gulf rentier states are similarly exposed, and Kuwait could vanish via conquest by Iraqi Shiite militias. As Crooke recently said on Daniel Davis Deep Dive, “People just do not see the huge geopolitical shifts that are taking place today. The Middle East is going to change. You will not recognize it in two years’ time.”

How Iran defeated Trump’s Israel First GOP

A public display in Tehran portrays Trump in prison

By Max Blumenthal

Nov 4, 2026

Trump wrote his own epitaph when he declared, “If people ever got tired of me in the US, I’ll move to Israel and become prime minister.”

Trump launched a failed war on Iran for Israel last February, as his NSC director and Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted. Now, the war has come home.

Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz became a vice grip around the neck of Trump and the GOP, especially in the heartland, where diesel prices are 70% higher than a year ago, and farmers have been forced to leave crops in the ground. 74% of Americans told pollsters the failed Iran war was a crucial or major factor in their vote tonight, and over 60% said they were voting against the Republicans because of it.

Democrats won a Senate seat in Kansas for the first time since 1932. They also flipped a seat in Iowa, which Trump won by 12 points in 2024, giving them control of the senate.

A Democrat has taken the seat of Lindsey Graham, the late neocon who advised Netanyahu on how to manipulate Trump into the war, resoundingly defeating his sister in South Carolina. In this deep red Southern bastion, a Democrat has not won a senate race since the days of Fritz Hollings, a now-extinct brand of conservative populist who opposed the Gulf war and railed against the neocons.

Trump’s promise of $15 billion in aid to farmers getting hammered by surging diesel costs failed to stop the bleeding. And it’s now another cost of the war.

The GOP strategy of hanging Hasan Piker and his pro-Palestine politics like an albatross around the neck of Democrats was also doomed from the start, as most swing state voters had never heard of the podcaster. Worse, the ploy reminded them how fanatically Israel-centric the Republicans had become under Trump. The Democrats had much more success weaponizing Jeffrey Epstein as a symbol of Trump’s corruption whose ghost subtly invoked malign Israeli influence over the US government.

Hours before polls closed, Trump issued a desperate pledge to end $4 billion in annual aid to Israel. He seemed determined to repeat the con he pulled off in Dearborn, MI at the end of 2024, where he promised to end the Gaza genocide that Biden and Harris backed. Later that night, after the Democrats took the Senate, Trump gave up any pretense of independence and declared: “If people ever got tired of me in the US, I’ll move to Israel and become prime minister.”

Where the “special relationship” with Israel was once a matter of bipartisan unity among party elites, it’s become a polarizing wedge issue and a poison pill for any president. Trump was expected to launch a third assault on Iran immediately after the midterms, but his inner circle is now positioned in a circular firing line, with the neocons who served as Netanyahu’s proxies – Mark Levine, Mark Dubowitz, Ben Shapiro et al – blaming everyone but themselves for the Blue Wave, while pleading to remain in Trump’s good graces.

Tomorrow, Zionist forces will pull back and retrench. Schumer, Jeffries and presidential prospects like Josh Shapiro will become their next line of defense, and possibly their last reliable one in a party whose base is now passionate about ending America’s attachment to Israel.

Via https://thegrayzone.substack.com/p/how-iran-defeated-trumps-israel-first

Greenland Ratifies Trump Deal

Greenland ratifies Trump deal
RT
4 Nov, 2026 13:56
Washington is now set to expand its military footprint on the Danish-owned Arctic island

Greenland’s parliament ratified on Tuesday a security agreement reached earlier this year with US President Donald Trump, Reuters has reported. The deal, which is backed by Denmark, provides for an expansion of the US military presence on the Arctic island.

Trump started threatening to annex Greenland last year, claiming that the US needs it “for the purpose of national security” and for its rare-earth minerals.

The rhetoric sparked outrage in Copenhagen and prompted European NATO members to rally behind Denmark. The dispute eventually led to an agreement announced by the US, Denmark, and Greenland in September. Trump said at the time that it would give Washington “permanent control” over the Arctic territory’s security.

Backed by a majority of lawmakers in Greenland, the deal stipulates broadening the US military’s role on the island, paving the way for two new military bases, as well as Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system, while reaffirming Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.

Greenlandic Foreign Minister Mute Egede described the ratification as an important step for the island. However, Pele Broberg, head of the opposition Naleraq party claimed that Greenland gained no economic benefits from the deal, as cited by Reuters.

Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that Europe had given the US “the greatest gift we were ever given,” referring to Greenland and the military deal.

The executive agreement is expected to receive its first reading in the Danish parliament next week, followed by a second reading and a final vote on November 19. The deal will enter into force once Denmark and Greenland have ratified it, and does not require approval from the US Senate.

Via https://rt-english.com/news/648398-greenland-us-security-deal-trump/

Tech billionaires suffer as Democrats drub Republicans


From CNBC

4 November, 2026

Excerpts:

The election also sharpened the political fight over data centers and artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Texas is a major center of planned data-center construction, and Hinojosa campaigned for a pause on new projects until the state adopts tougher rules.

Her victory gives Democrats more influence over Texas’ approach to the build-out, though the state Legislature remains in Republican hands.

The results also delivered a blow to the tech billionaires and corporate interest groups that poured hundreds of millions of dollars into backing Republican candidates who might be friendly to the massive AI data center projects they hope to build around the country.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and the cycle’s largest individual political donor, spent record sums in a failed effort to help Republicans retain power, including in Texas.

Musk’s spending may have become a liability as voters raised concerns about government corruption and the growing influence of billionaires in exit polls. Talarico repeatedly attacked Musk on the campaign trail, accusing him of trying to buy “his very own personal United States Senator.”

“Tonight’s results are a wake-up call for corporate special interests and billionaires who have been rigging the economy,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, who defeated former Republican Sen. John Sununu to win an open Senate seat in New Hampshire.

Silicon Valley spent record sums trying to shape the election. Instead, it got a Democratic House promising to haul its CEOs before congressional investigators.

Many of the winners ran against not just Trump, but the billionaire donors who helped bankroll Republicans.

Via https://t.me/healthimpact/3850

“Kill Me Clinics”: Disturbing New Industry Quietly Spreads Across America

Zero Hedge
Nov 03, 2026

A controversial new industry is slowly taking root across the United States, with so-called “kill me clinics” charging terminally ill patients thousands of dollars to end their lives, according to the Daily Mail.

[…]

In New York, where assisted suicide became legal in August, a boutique clinic called Quietus is charging patients up to $12,000 to end their lives. The clinic was founded by David Atkins, a former hospice worker who spent more than a decade living in Buddhist temples in South Korea. Atkins told the Mail that 15 people have already died through his clinic, while another 40 to 50 have contacted the business or been referred.

“You borrow this body from the universe. It’s like a rental car, and then at a certain point, you got to return the rental car,” Atkins said.

Patients are prescribed a lethal cocktail of drugs that they consume at home, typically losing consciousness within minutes and dying within an hour. However, some have reportedly taken hours or even days to die.

Quietus charges $11,000 for its services, plus another $1,000 for the drugs. Competing providers in California and New Mexico advertise prices ranging from $2,500 to $3,000. The emergence of these clinics has sparked concerns that assisted suicide is becoming a lucrative business, with critics warning that financial incentives could put vulnerable patients at risk.

“It’s sadly no surprise to see kill-me clinics popping up in New York, because most doctors don’t want to touch assisted suicide with a ten-foot pole,” Jessica Rodgers of the Patient’s Rights Action Fund told the Mail.

Rodgers accused some providers of setting up practices “to make lucrative profits off of scared patients.”

Atkins pushed back against the criticism, insisting his clinic has turned away patients who aren’t terminally ill and referred them for mental health assistance instead. “The goal is that those who can afford this will balance out those who cannot afford it,” he said.

Under New York law, patients must be terminally ill adults with six months or less to live, undergo a mental health evaluation and administer the lethal drugs themselves. In Canada, where the practice was legalized in 2016, 16,499 people received medical assistance in dying in 2024, accounting for 5.1% of all deaths, according to government figures.

Unlike in New York, Canadians no longer have to be terminally ill to qualify, which has long raised concerns among opponents about how far eligibility could eventually expand.

Some of the stories emerging from Canada are downright horrifying.

As we reported in September, an 83-year-old Christian grandmother in Ontario, Brigitte Stegemann, was allegedly euthanized under Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program this summer, and her family says she never gave her final consent.

Family members claim that Stegemann, a devout Christian, had already turned down MAID because it went against her faith. A nurse’s first attempt to insert an IV failed, leaving blood on Stegemann, her bedding and the floor. When the doctor arrived and asked about giving her “medicine,” her grandchild Kranendonk said her grandmother didn’t speak, nod or open her eyes, while her hands were folded in prayer. The doctor went ahead with the euthanization and Stegemann was dead within roughly 10 minutes.

The care providers involved have maintained that Stegemann legally consented, and police in Belleville have confirmed an open investigation.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/kill-me-clinics-disturbing-new-industry-quietly-spreads-across-america

Following Bill Gates’ Prediction, Cyberattacks Strike Refrigerators Across 5 European Countries

This comes just weeks after Bill Gates said “over the next year, we are going to have a lot of negative surprises” from AI cyberattacks.

A new wave of cyberattacks has struck supermarket refrigeration systems across Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Estonia, allowing hackers to remotely manipulate refrigerators and freezers and causing large quantities of perishable food to be discarded.

In some cases, attackers changed refrigeration settings to 50°C (122°F), disrupting temperature controls and triggering widespread food spoilage. The incidents occurred three weeks after a similar cyberattack compromised refrigeration systems at hundreds of supermarkets across France.

Refrigeration is essential for limiting the growth of food-borne pathogens in perishable products. Prolonged refrigeration failures can force retailers to discard substantial quantities of food.

Just weeks before this latest wave cyberattacks, Bill Gates stated during a CNN interview:

“Over the next year… we are going to have a lot of negative surprises. We’ll probably see most dramatically in the next year is cyberattacks.”

Watch the video here

Days after that, Bill Gates said the COVID pandemic “didn’t work the way I expected.” He proceeded to say, “over the next several years, certainly in the cyber domain, because there’s a business model there, you will see a lot of attacks different in terms of scale than anything we’ve seen in the past.”:

Watch the video here

The World Economic Forum has already been war-gaming cyberattacks since 2019. Through its Cyber Polygon initiative, it has conducted international cybersecurity exercises simulating large-scale cyber threats, including attacks on interconnected digital infrastructure and supply chains.

This is where Klaus Schwab declared, “It’s high time for a Great Reset,” and warned of a “cyber pandemic” that could make COVID look like a “small disturbance” by “halting our power supply, transportation, and hospitals.”:

Watch the video here

Meanwhile, multiple governments are now encouraging citizens to maintain emergency supplies of food, water, and other essentials to prepare for potential disruptions.

Something is definitely afoot…

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/widespread-cyberattacks-strike-supermarket-refrigerators-across-five-european-countries/5944997

Trump Talks Peace While CIA Fueling War in Ukraine

27 October 2026 by Larry C. Johnson

The United States is simultaneously paying to destroy Russian diesel production and begging Russia to sell it more diesel. You could not design a more incoherent policy if you tried.

Trump’s CIA is helping Ukraine destroy Russian refineries while he cuts deals to sell Russian diesel. His spy chief flies to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while his agency’s own analysts are afraid to tell him what they think.

I spent enough years at the Central Intelligence Agency that I learned how to read the press stories that the agency’s friends place for it. Shane Harris’s new profile of CIA Director John Ratcliffe in The Atlantic, published October 23, is one of those stories. It is written to make Ratcliffe look like the sober professional in a chaotic administration. But read it carefully and it confirms something Washington has spent four years denying: the United States is not merely supplying Ukraine. Through the CIA, it is fighting Russia.

“The CIA is in the lead”

Harris does not bury the lede. Armed with information the CIA provides, Ukraine’s military has been launching strikes deep inside Russia. American spy satellites give Ukraine early warning of incoming Russian missiles and drones. Among U.S. personnel on the ground in Ukraine, a retired senior officer who travels there frequently told him, “the CIA is in the lead.”

It gets better. A Baltic intelligence officer who works closely with the Americans told Harris that, whatever Donald Trump says in public, the CIA’s operations against Russia are now “much more aggressive” than they were under Joe Biden. Officers in the CIA’s Special Activities Center, the people who run covert and paramilitary operations, are reportedly among the happiest at Langley, because they are so busy. And this is not new. As Harris notes, the CIA helped build Ukraine’s modern intelligence apparatus after Russia took Crimea in 2014. This has been the agency’s war for more than a decade.

Let me translate that from the polite language of a magazine profile. American intelligence is identifying the targets inside Russia, American satellites are running Ukraine’s air-defense warning network, and American officers are “in the lead” on the ground. If Russia were doing that for Mexico against Texas, Washington would call it an act of war. Moscow has said for years that it is fighting NATO, not just Ukraine. Here, courtesy of The Atlantic and its anonymous sources, is the evidence.

Shooting ourselves in the fuel tank

Now comes the absurdity. According to Harris, the CIA’s success has become a problem for the President. The refinery strikes the agency helps enable have hobbled Russia’s economy. The International Energy Agency estimates that in the first eight months of this year, Ukraine hit a Russian refinery on average once every three days.

Those refineries make diesel. The world is short of diesel. The International Energy Agency says the shortage will run well into 2027. And Trump, according to Harris, blames the attacks on Russian refineries for the spike in prices and wants them to stop. He has threatened to cut off intelligence support to Ukraine unless Kyiv halts the refinery strikes.

Think about that. The CIA helps Ukraine knock out Russian refining capacity. Diesel prices soar. Then on October 9, in the middle of peace talks in Miami, the President announces a deal for Russia to sell its diesel on the world market, boasting on Truth Social that prices would be “COMING DOWN… AND FAST!” Harris reports that the announcement caught the negotiators by surprise, and that Putin made no reciprocal commitment. So the United States is simultaneously paying to destroy Russian diesel production and begging Russia to sell it more diesel. You could not design a more incoherent policy if you tried.

The spy channel

The most revealing passage in the piece concerns Ratcliffe’s trip to Moscow in August. Trump sent him to meet his counterparts in the Russian security services through what is informally called the “spy channel.” His message, Harris writes, was that nobody was winning: Russia had failed to make meaningful advances, and Ukraine could not expel Russian forces. The hope was that Ratcliffe could convince Putin he was pursuing a lost cause.

I have two problems with that. The first is the claim itself. Russia’s General Staff reported to Putin on October 16 that its forces had taken roughly 6,500 square kilometers and 310 settlements since January. You can argue the Russian figure is inflated, and I have. But even DeepState, the Ukrainian mapping project, counts about 1,300 square kilometers. Russia is advancing. It is not doing so as fast as Moscow claims, but “failed to make meaningful advances” is wishful thinking dressed up as intelligence.

The second problem is the messenger. Imagine you are the head of the SVR or the FSB. The director of the CIA flies into Moscow to tell you, spy to spy, that your war is a stalemate and you should give it up. You know perfectly well that his agency is the one feeding Ukraine the targeting data for the drones hitting your refineries. That is not a peace overture. That is a threat with a diplomatic passport. If Ratcliffe expected the Russians to take his assessment as neutral advice, he does not understand the people he was talking to.

Not what Truman built

Ratcliffe likes to talk about returning the CIA to its “roots.” He has the roots wrong. Harry Truman did not create the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 to run paramilitary campaigns. He created it to collect and analyze intelligence from foreign sources and tell the President the truth, so that he would never again be blindsided the way Franklin Roosevelt was at Pearl Harbor. Covert action came in through the back door. Within a year, the National Security Council’s directive NSC 10/2 authorized covert operations, and the clandestine tail has been wagging the analytic dog ever since.

Truman saw it happening and said so publicly. In an op-ed published in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963, a month after John Kennedy’s assassination, he wrote that he had become disturbed by how far the CIA had strayed from “its intended role.” His words are worth quoting: “I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” The agency, he warned, “has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.” He said that in creating it, “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions,” and he asked that the CIA be “restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President.”

Sixty-three years later, Ratcliffe has turned Truman’s warning into a mission statement.

How covert action corrupts the truth

I want to explain why this matters, because it is not an abstract argument about organization charts. I watched it from the inside.

When an intelligence agency is simply collecting and analyzing information, its only stake in the outcome is getting the answer right. The moment the same agency is running a covert operation, it has a horse in the race. The operation has a budget, a sponsor on the Seventh Floor, careers riding on it and, most important, a President who has already been told it will work. Now the analysts down the hall are being asked to assess whether their own colleagues’ operation is succeeding. Bad news is no longer just bad news. It is an attack on the director’s program and an embarrassment to the man in the Oval Office.

The pressure is rarely an explicit order to change a conclusion. It is subtler and more corrosive than that. The pessimistic assessment gets sent back for more sourcing. The analyst who keeps writing that the operation is failing gets a reputation for not being a team player, and does not get the next promotion. The briefing for the President leads with the success stories and buries the costs in an annex. After a few rounds of that, as Julia Curlee told Harris, officers simply stop telling the hard truths and “learned to avoid” what the White House did not want to hear.

We have seen where this leads. The Bay of Pigs was planned by the clandestine service and kept walled off from the agency’s own analysts, who might have pointed out that there was no evidence the Cuban people were about to rise up against Castro. The operators sold the President the operation they wanted to run, and the analysis that would have stopped it never reached his desk. The pattern repeats whenever the agency becomes both the player and the referee.

Now look at Ukraine. The CIA is, by The Atlantic’s account, “in the lead” on the ground, helping run a campaign of deep strikes inside Russia. The same CIA is responsible for telling the President whether that campaign is working and whether Ukraine can win. Is it any surprise that the agency’s message, the one Ratcliffe carried to Moscow, is that Russia has “failed to make meaningful advances”? An agency that has spent twelve years building Ukraine’s intelligence service and now directs its targeting has every institutional incentive to report that its war is going well, or at least not badly. The negative consequences, Russian advances, Ukrainian casualties, a diesel shortage that is hammering Europe and American consumers, are exactly the things an agency in that position is least likely to put front and center.

That is the corruption Truman feared. Not that the CIA would lie outright, but that it would slowly start serving the operation instead of the President, and the President would make decisions based on intelligence shaped by people who need him to keep going.

An agency that tells the boss what he wants

Harris also reports on the state of the CIA itself, and it isn’t pretty. Ratcliffe pledged at his confirmation hearing to “conduct covert action at the direction of the president, going places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do.” The covert-action side is thriving, from Ukraine to Venezuela to the CIA’s air strikes on suspected drug boats, which legal experts say may violate the laws of armed conflict. One former officer told Harris, “The agency is over its skis right now.”

The analysts, meanwhile, are miserable. More of them report that the objectivity of their work is being undermined. Julia Curlee, a senior analyst who resigned in May, put it bluntly: “Ratcliffe isn’t protecting the CIA from politicization; he’s leading it.” Current and former officers say they have never seen so many retirements and resignations. An agency where the paramilitary officers are thrilled and the analysts are afraid to tell hard truths is an agency built to fight wars, not to understand them. And Harris himself notes that Trump did not heed the intelligence community’s warnings about how Iran would respond to American attacks. We are all paying for that one now.

Pick a policy

So here is where the United States stands. The President calls Zelensky “more difficult to deal with” than Putin and urges Ukrainians to elect someone else. His CIA director is running operations against Russia that are more aggressive than Biden’s. His CIA is helping Ukraine destroy Russian refineries while he cuts deals to sell Russian diesel. His spy chief flies to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while his agency’s own analysts are afraid to tell him what they think.

That is not a strategy. It is a contradiction that the American people are paying for at the pump, and that the Ukrainians are paying for with their lives. If Washington wants peace, it should stop being a combatant. If it wants to fight Russia, it should have the honesty to say so, to Congress and to the voters, before the midterms rather than after. What it cannot keep doing is both, and pretending it is doing neither.

Via https://nuclear-news.net/2026/11/03/1-b1-trump-talks-peace-while-the-cia-is-fueling-the-war-in-ukraine/

Trump Reacts to Murphy Stroke Days After Senator’s ‘Insane’ Iran Warning

Nov 1, 2026

President Donald Trump reacted to news that Democratic Senator Chris Murphy suffered a stroke, days after he called a possible administration plan for renewed military action against Iran “insane.”

After landing in Dubuque, Iowa, for a campaign rally, Trump told reporters on Sunday that he was “really surprised” to learn about the Connecticut senator’s stroke. “Nobody wants to have that,” he added.

Murphy, 53, began experiencing numbness in his arm while attending his son’s hockey game Saturday afternoon, his chief of staff Allison Herwitt said in a statement.

“He was taken to a local hospital, where it was discovered he had experienced a stroke,” Herwitt said. “He was transferred to Johns Hopkins for further monitoring and is responding well to treatment.”

Doctors were encouraged by Murphy’s progress, and he was awake and alert, Herwitt added.

“We are optimistic he will make a full recovery,” she said.

Murphy serves on the Senate’s Appropriations and Foreign Relations committees and is a leading voice on immigration and gun policy. He is considered a contender for more senior leadership positions in the chamber and among the many Democrats seen as potential 2028 candidates for the White House.

Murphy said last week that he had been briefed on a possible resumption of U.S. military operations against Iran.

The Democrat discussed the briefing during a Middle East Institute event in Washington following a trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He said lawmakers had received a detailed description of what a renewed military campaign could look like.

Asked about the proposal, Murphy said: “Their plan is insane. It will lead to devastating escalation, and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.”

Murphy said officials had been asked by Trump to develop a plan, although he said he did not know whether they believed it would work.

“The plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests,” Murphy said.

Murphy also addressed the issue on social media on October 29.

“Trump is reportedly planning to restart war with Iran after the election,” he wrote. “Some of us have been briefed on the war plan. And while I cannot disclose any details, I can say this: the plan is insane.”

He added that the plan “will not achieve objectives and will set off a new cycle of escalation.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House recently briefed allies in the Middle East to prepare for a “short, intense military campaign” against Iran as soon as November 4, the day after the midterm elections, according to three senior Gulf Arab officials, granted anonymity to share sensitive discussions.

Trump said Friday that the Iran war “is going to be over very soon.”

[…]

Via https://www.newsweek.com/trump-reacts-to-murphy-stroke-days-after-senators-insane-iran-warning-12647635

Western News Media Propagandists Describe US Bombing Iran As “Defensive

Caitlin Johnstone

Nov 4, 2026

I never want to hear another American compare their media’s malpractice to North Korean propaganda ever again. Westerners are more aggressively propagandized than any other population on earth.

The propagandists of the American press have been uncritically describing recent US airstrikes on Iran as “defensive” despite the US being the clear aggressor in this ongoing conflict, and despite the United States existing on the other side of the planet from Iran.

CBS News was the most egregious offender with its headline, “U.S. launches defensive strikes at Iranian targets near Strait of Hormuz.”

The title frames it as an objective fact that the attack was defensive in nature, without quotation marks around the word “defensive” and without even bothering to uncritically cite US officials as the source of this claim.

As a reminder, CBS News was recently acquired by David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, who is one of the wealthiest people on the planet with a net worth of some $160 billion and who is also the largest single donor to the Israeli military. The Ellisons have responded to Israel’s genocide-induced PR crisis by frenetically buying up control over major platforms like CBS, CNN, HBO Max, Warner Bros and TikTok in order to drum up support for US-Israeli military agendas.

Other mass media outlets weren’t much better, uncritically regurgitating assertions from the US government which present the attacks as “defensive”.

The Associated Press headline on the story reads, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

From The Washington Post, “U.S. forces launch new ‘defensive’ strikes in Iran on eve of election.”

From CNN, “US military conducts strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island in defensive operation, officials say.”

From Fox News, “US launches ‘defensive’ strikes on Iranian island as Tehran talks hang in balance.”

From Reuters, “US carries out ‘defensive’ strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island, officials say.”

From ABC News, “US carries out defensive airstrikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island: Officials.”

From Politico, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

The first paragraph of the Newsweek write-up on the story reads, “The U.S. carried out defensive strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official told the Associated Press (AP) on Monday.”

The story that these propagandists are spinning was first broken by The Wall Street Journal, who reported that the attacks on Qeshm Island were actually part of a series of secret strikes on Iran which have been going on for weeks now. Paragraphs four and five of the report contain claims attributed to anonymous US officials saying their attacks have been “defensive in nature” in response to Iranian aggressions, which the aforementioned other outlets then seized on as the most significant and newsworthy element in the story.

At no time is the assertion that US forces are “defending” themselves off the coast of Iran ever called into question by any of these outlets. At no time is the audience ever reminded that the US started this war of aggression without any provocation whatsoever. At no time is the audience ever encouraged to ask what the fuck the US military is doing “defending” itself thousands of miles from American shores.

I never want to hear another American compare their media’s malpractice to North Korean propaganda ever again. Westerners are more aggressively propagandized than any other population on earth.

[…]

Via https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2026/11/04/western-news-media-propagandists-describe-us-bombing-iran-as-defensive/

What If Your Kid Doesn’t Need a Pediatrician

I set out to write a guide to handling vaccine pressure. I ended up questioning the whole arrangement.

My granddaughter needed a hearing test. My daughter assumed, the way most of us would, that the road to a referral for the test or the specialist runs through the pediatrician.

She booked a visit with a new pediatric practice. Within minutes of the staff learning my granddaughter is unvaccinated, the appointment turned into an intervention. This wasn’t consistent with their practice, they said. No referral, no hearing test, nothing, until she put a vaccination visit on the calendar. So she booked it.

She needed the referral, and of course, she had exactly zero intention of showing up. After that, every call to the office came with a fresh lecture. She told me she had never been so bullied over it in her life.

All of that for a hearing test.

The Assignment

About a month ago, a friend told me that if I wrote a post about how moms can handle vaccine pressure at the pediatrician’s office – with actual words to say in the exam room – it would go viral. I said I would give it a go.

Then I spent a month failing to write it.

I procrastinated. I cogitated and tried to outline something. I played out every angle.

Every road I went down ended in the same place, the same thing I tell women who hire a doula to “protect” their birth plan during a hospital birth: you can’t buy eggs at the hardware store. You can walk in with the best list, the sweetest smile, and the sharpest elbows in town, and they still won’t have eggs. Autonomy and informed consent aren’t on the menu.

I had been asked, and I was desperately trying, to write a guide to buying eggs at the hardware store.

The High Priests of the Exam Room

Once you walk into the system and let them know that you need something (a prescription, a form filled out, a referral), the system holds every card. And once they’ve filed you under “those kind of” parents, you get the worst the profession has to offer: condescension, the need to control, weight-throwing.

Medicine has a priesthood problem.

[…]

That parent sees the doctor as a vendor. She’s paying, she wants what she came for, and she’d like it without the attitude, the same way you’d expect a contractor to fix the leak without critiquing your life choices.

Nothing gets under a doctor’s skin faster.

They hate feeling “used” or treated like they have customers instead of serfs. Whatever brought them to medical school, plenty of them seemed to have acquired a taste for being the authority in the room: respected, revered, and, though they’d never say it out loud, obeyed.

There are exceptions. They are RARE, and the rare ones mostly don’t take insurance, which puts them out of reach for most young families on a budget.

But I’d promised my friend scripts. So I made a few attempts:

Script One: The Polite Dodge

“Thanks, but I’m not looking for vaccine guidance today. Can we stick to why we came in?”

Or: “If you have something printed, I’m happy to take it home and read it. Maybe we can talk about it next time?”

These buy you one visit, and you pay for it later. Every time you use them, the doctor grows more certain you’re humoring her. Sooner or later you get pushed harder, with threats like the ones my daughter got, or with a letter discharging you from the practice.

Script Two: The Mic Drop

Then there’s the version that tries to end the conversation for good.

You: We’ve spent a lot of time with the FDA package inserts for the childhood vaccines. We’re not willing to accept the adverse event risks listed in Section 6.1 in exchange for whatever benefits the public health authorities promise. We’re informed, and we don’t consent.

Doctor: Our policy is that every patient follows the CDC (or if they’re particularly ridiculous, the AAP) schedule. If you won’t, we can’t keep seeing you.

You: Does your practice receive bonus payments from my insurer, or any insurer, tied to the vaccination rate of your patient population? Quality incentives, value-based payments, anything like that?

Doctor: (huff, puff) Well, I never! (clutches pearls)

Deeply satisfying. I’ll confess I had fun writing it. It also probably makes this your last visit. You’ve made an enemy of the person whose signature you need, and the odds they let you back in the door aren’t great.

[…]

It Starts in the Maternity Ward

If you’ve had a baby in a hospital, you know the pediatrician question comes early and often before, during and after the delivery. Who’s your pediatrician? Have you picked one yet? Can we get a name? At our local hospital, they won’t discharge your newborn until they’ve confirmed an appointment on the books within a couple of days. Tell them to pound sand, and the next call they make is to CPS.

Ask me how I know.

[…]

Look at the calendar the AAP recommends. Your baby is supposed to have about ten well visits before his second birthday: at a few days old, then one month, two, four, six, nine, twelve, fifteen, eighteen, and twenty-four. Now lay the shot schedule over it. Two, four, six, twelve, fifteen, eighteen months. The visits are built around the vaccines. Take the vaccines away, and most of what’s left is a scale, a tape measure, and a clipboard you could fill out at your kitchen table.

So for those of us who have opted way the hell out of the vaccine play, the only reason we ever call or visit the pediatrician is for acute needs. Fever. Rash. Playground injury.

In other words – you want someone to call late at night to run some symptoms by and get the watch-at-home, bring-in-tomorrow or go-to-the-ER answer. What you don’t need is a fight-or-flight-inducing confrontation every time you need something from a practice that is trying to hold your child’s care hostage to an injection schedule.

Follow the Money

Here’s where my benefits-consultant brain kicks in. Most health plans are graded on something called HEDIS, a set of quality scores run by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. One of those measures is Childhood Immunization Status, the share of kids fully vaccinated by their second birthday. Plans get scored on it, and plenty of them pass the pressure down to practices through quality bonuses and “value-based” payments.

What You Actually Need

Once you stop assuming that “having a pediatrician” and “having access to good care” are the same thing, the list of what your child needs from the medical system gets very short.

  1. Sick care. Ear infections, strep, the rash that won’t quit, the cough that sounds like an angry seal. If you’re uncomfortable with homeopathic or other holistic approaches, urgent care and telehealth handle nearly all of these episodes, and there’s an urgent care clinic in roughly every strip mall between here and the Pacific.
  2. The occasional physical form. Daycares, schools, camps, and sports leagues want a signature. Many urgent care and retail clinics do school and sports physicals for a flat fee.
  3. A referral now and then. Here’s the kicker to my daughter’s story: plenty of insurance plans, PPOs especially, don’t require a referral to see a specialist at all. Call your plan before you book anything. She probably endured all that bullying for a piece of paper she never needed.

Your Permission Slip

If firing your pediatrician makes your stomach drop, I understand. Most of us were raised to believe a good mother has a pediatrician the way a good Catholic has a parish. If you need someone with an MD to tell you it’s okay, let me introduce you to Dr. Larry Palevsky.

I’ve learned a tremendous amount from Larry over the years at the Weston A. Price conference. He’s a New York pediatrician who has spent years questioning the white-coat orthodoxy from the inside, and he does it with all the Norman Rockwell family doctor kindness you’re longing for but somehow never seem to find in those totalitarian practices anymore. He only sees patients locally, so unless you live near him on Long Island, you can’t book an appointment. But his website is the next best thing. It gives you all the credentialed permission you need to fire your own pediatrician.

Most Fevers Don’t Need You to Do Anything

Dr. Larry taught me that you need way less urgent care than you think.

A child who can mount a good fever is a healthy child. That heat is the immune system at work, and most of the time it needs nothing from you except room to finish the job. When we reach for the Tylenol at the first degree, we interrupt that work, and our kids pay for it over the long haul. Even the (kid-transing, school-closing, Kennedy-hating) American Academy of Pediatrics says fever is protective and that fever reducers are for comfort, with no need to chase a normal reading on the thermometer.

What a sick kid needs is wonderfully old-fashioned: a dark, quiet room, a mommy rubbing his back, and a steady supply of broth.

In our house, the other thing that comes out when someone gets sick is the homeopathic kit.

Acute illness is where I’ve seen homeopathy help most in my own family: the high fever that comes on suddenly in the middle of the night, the clingy, inconsolable teething baby, the earache that shows up at bedtime. A well-chosen remedy is gentle and cheap, and it doesn’t suppress symptoms so much as help the body move through them to homeostasis faster and more gently. If you’re curious, a basic acute kit and a good home-prescribing guide are a fine place to start. Many professional homeopaths (myself included) will happily take your call or text and do the remedy-selection for you. Some even offer full-family memberships so that they’re always on call.

The white coats do get one thing right: a tiny baby under three months with a fever of 100.4 or higher needs to be seen today. So does a child of any age who is limp or hard to wake, has a stiff neck, stops making wet diapers, is working hard to breathe, or has a rash that doesn’t fade when you press on it. Those are the times you pick up the phone.

AI can tell you this, by the way.

But Then What?

I know how hard all of this is when both parents work and nobody can stay home with a sick kid on back-rubbing, broth-warming duty. I lived it. But I’m not here to make anyone feel good about our choices, mine especially.

Long before I woke up to my own health journey and the failures of Team White-Coat, I was the career mom who brushed off my kids’ illnesses, suppressed symptoms with Sudafed, Advil, cortisone cream and sent them to school anyway. Suck it up, I told them, because that’s what I did. I went to work sick, I expected them to go to school sick, and I called it grit. I wish I knew then what I know now. I recently apologized to my 20-something year old son for how I treated him when he was sick growing up.

Who You Gonna Call at 11 P.M.?

There are some great options. If you want an ongoing relationship with the same practitioner, you can have it, affordably, from your house in your bathrobe.

I also like MyCatholicDoctor.com, which offers freedom-respecting urgent care or ongoing pediatric care virtually, and even better, they take most insurance plans. In both cases, you get an ongoing relationship with a pediatrician, minus the inquisition. Yes, it’s telehealth only. That’s the first objection I hear, and my answer is: so what?

[…]

Via https://www.katytalento.com/p/what-if-your-kid-doesnt-need-a-pediatrician