Kennedy Starts Push to Help Americans Quit Antidepressants

Posted on by
Reply
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 20, 2026
[…]

Tens of millions of American adults take antidepressants, and many remain on the drugs for years without ever receiving a structured plan to stop. Depression — characterized by persistent sadness, low motivation, fatigue, sleep disruption, poor concentration, and loss of interest in daily life — affects nearly every system in your body when it becomes chronic. Left untreated, it increases your risk for metabolic dysfunction, social isolation, poor physical health, and even shortened lifespan.

Yet the conversation around treatment has started to shift dramatically. On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a new national effort to address psychiatric overprescribing.1

This is important because many patients start antidepressants after brief appointments where lifestyle factors receive little attention. Sleep quality, movement patterns, sunlight exposure, and metabolic health rarely come up in those rushed visits, even though each one directly shapes how your brain regulates mood.

At the same time, serious questions continue to surround the research used to convince the public that antidepressants work exceptionally well long term. Investigators who reanalyzed one of the most influential federally funded depression trials reported that the original success claims were heavily inflated.2

When the data was reexamined using the study’s original rules, the picture of long-term recovery looked far bleaker than the version repeated in medical training and media coverage for nearly two decades. That growing disconnect between public messaging and real-world outcomes explains why federal agencies have started elevating exercise and other non-drug strategies as frontline mental health tools rather than backup options after medications fail.

Federal Agencies Push Back Against Psychiatric Overprescribing

In their announcement, HHS introduced a new action plan focused on reducing unnecessary psychiatric medication use, especially among children and adolescents.3 HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the initiative would “support patient autonomy, require informed consent and shared decision-making, and shift the standard of care toward prevention, transparency, and a more holistic approach to mental health.” The announcement framed psychiatric overuse as part of the broader mental health crisis facing the U.S.

• Federal agencies said they will review prescription patterns and medication risks — HHS stated that agencies are combining their expertise to evaluate how psychiatric medications are prescribed, their benefits, their harms, and the role of nonmedication approaches in mental health care.

The plan specifically mentioned “scalable, evidence-based solutions” and highlighted non-drug strategies such as psychotherapy, family support, nutrition, and physical activity. Officials also stated they want to prevent unnecessary psychiatric drug initiation and support tapering for patients who are not seeing meaningful clinical benefit.

• The initiative placed strong emphasis on informed consent and regular medication reviews — HHS released a “Dear Colleague” letter encouraging providers to prioritize shared decision-making and routinely discuss the risks and benefits of psychiatric medications with patients.

The guidance also encouraged clinicians to review whether medications are still helping over time instead of assuming long-term use automatically remains appropriate. The letter included information about billing codes that support evidence-based nonmedication treatments, making it easier for providers to offer alternatives beyond prescriptions.

• New guidance supporting deprescribing efforts — The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance explaining how physicians and practitioners can receive Medicare payment for deprescribing-related care. Deprescribing refers to carefully tapering or discontinuing medications when appropriate rather than stopping suddenly.

CMS also directed clinicians to professional society guidelines, peer-reviewed deprescribing protocols, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) taper instructions designed to reduce withdrawal problems and improve patient safety during medication reduction.

• HHS outlined multiple educational and policy initiatives scheduled throughout 2026 — The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will release reports on prescribing trends and host educational webinars on psychiatric medication side effects, deprescribing approaches, and nonmedication treatments.

HHS also announced a July Technical Expert Panel involving health professionals, patients, government agencies, and professional societies to help develop formal guidance on psychiatric medication use and discontinuation.

• The federal plan also focused heavily on children and adolescents — HHS stated that agencies would support child-specific training for frontline prescribers and improve access to specialist consultations and evidence-based psychotherapy services.

CMS additionally announced plans to expand access to nonmedication care and reduce overreliance on psychiatric drugs for younger populations. At the same time, the National Institutes of Health and FDA said they are accelerating research into new mental health treatments as part of the broader federal initiative.

The Antidepressant Success Story Cracked

The federal push for greater transparency and informed consent didn’t happen in a vacuum, because growing scrutiny over the research behind antidepressant effectiveness had already started reshaping the conversation around psychiatric care. An investigative report published by Mad in America in 2023, written by Robert Whitaker, examined the STAR*D antidepressant trial, a federally funded study that shaped depression treatment guidelines for years.4

STAR*D originally claimed that nearly 70% of patients eventually became symptom-free after multiple medication attempts.5 Those results helped convince doctors, media outlets, and the public that antidepressants worked effectively for most people in real-world settings. The later analysis, however, argued that the reported numbers were inflated through protocol violations, selective reporting, and altered outcome measurements.

• The original study involved more than 4,000 patients treated with antidepressants in routine clinical settings — Researchers designed STAR*D to reflect what happens in ordinary medical practice rather than tightly controlled laboratory trials. Participants entered the study after struggling with persistent depressive symptoms severe enough to interfere with daily life.

Patients who failed one antidepressant were repeatedly switched to different drugs or combinations of drugs through four escalating treatment stages. That approach mirrored what many patients still experience today — trial after trial of different medications while searching for relief.

• Investigators later discovered the study changed its own rules during the process — According to the Mad in America analysis, the original STAR*D protocol measured remission using a structured interview conducted by trained clinicians — a rigorous, time-intensive assessment considered the gold standard at the time.

Partway through, researchers switched to a quick self-report questionnaire patients filled out themselves, and the looser tool produced noticeably rosier numbers, which dramatically improved the study’s public image.

• The difference between the reported success rate and the corrected success rate was enormous —The published reports promoted a cumulative remission rate of roughly 67%. Yet investigators who reanalyzed the data using the original study rules found remission rates closer to 35%. The corrected numbers showed that most participants failed to achieve lasting symptom relief despite repeated medication trials.

• Dropout rates and long-term recovery data painted a far different picture — Thousands of participants left the study before completion. Some stopped because of side effects. Others saw little improvement. Investigators also reported that only about 3% of the original 4,041 participants both improved and stayed well through the full study period. That “stay-well” number sharply contrasted with the optimistic public narrative repeated for years after STAR*D first appeared.

• If the corrected numbers are right, an entire generation of patients was misled — Researchers argued the study’s reporting influenced psychiatric care, physician training, and public trust in antidepressants for nearly two decades. Media organizations repeated the high remission numbers widely, reinforcing the belief that repeated medication switching reliably produced recovery.

Understanding how those numbers were constructed helps you ask better questions about long-term treatment strategies and why exercise, sleep restoration, metabolic health support, and psychotherapy now receive far greater attention as foundational mental health tools.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/kennedy-starts-push-help-americans-quit-antidepressants/5944052

 

Agents Provocateurs Among French Protesters

Posted on by
Reply

Forget the island: Jeffrey Epstein’s secret war for Libya’s billions

Posted on by
Reply
Forget the island: Jeffrey Epstein’s secret war for Libya’s billions
By Mustafa Fetouri
12 Mar, 2026 04:57
New DOJ documents expose a 2011 plan by Epstein and former intelligence operatives to seize $70 billion in frozen Libyan assets

While NATO bombs were still falling on Tripoli in the summer of 2011, a different kind of predator was circling the Libyan capital from the safety of a Manhattan townhouse. Newly released 2026 US Department of Justice documents reveal that Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and alleged Israeli intelligence asset, was also a geopolitical vulture looking to feast on the remains of the Libyan state.

Epstein’s private correspondence reveals a cold-blooded calculation to bypass international law and tap into the $32.4 billion in Libyan assets frozen in the US. The tragedy of the Libyan people was presented as a commercial opportunity.

On September 18, 2011, while the streets of Libya were still engulfed in the chaos, a clandestine plan was being hatched in New York to capture the country’s sovereign wealth. In an email titled ‘New York – Optics are important’, Jeffrey Epstein’s associate, Greg Brown, urgently pushed the financier to bankroll a high-level meeting with future Libyan leaders during the UN General Assembly. The targets were not minor players; they included Dr. Mohamed Magariaf, who would soon become Libya’s head of state, and his key advisers, Dr. Noah and Fadel Hshad.

Brown identified this trio as the men who would soon hold the mandate to negotiate with global giants like Goldman Sachs. The prize was a staggering $40 billion in Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) assets invested across Sub-Saharan Africa on top of the amounts frozen in the US banks. By offering to “identify, manage and monetize” these funds, Epstein’s circle sought to position themselves as the ultimate gatekeepers of Libya’s post-war economy – a ‘play’ that Brown promised would generate hundreds of millions for their own pockets.

The operation was in fact a privatized intelligence effort designed to exploit the vacuum of the Libyan state. Additional emails from the same period reveal that Epstein’s network was not working in isolation, claiming that former operatives from Britain’s MI6 and Israel’s Mossad were “willing to assist” in the hunt for Libya’s billions. This shadowy alliance viewed the $32.4 billion in funds frozen in the US – as well as the additional $40 billion’s African portfolio – not as protected sovereign wealth, but as a “significant opportunity” for recovery on a contingency-fee basis. By leveraging the “fearless” reputation Greg Brown attributed to Epstein, the group aimed to convince the nascent Libyan leadership that only their network of spies-turned-fixers had the “juice” to navigate the web of global finance and retrieve the nation’s “stolen” assets.

To justify this unprecedented financial intervention, Epstein’s network relied on a carefully constructed narrative that painted all Libyan overseas wealth as ‘stolen and misappropriated’ by the Gaddafi family – a claim that has never been proven 15 years later. This was a deliberate mischaracterization; in reality, these assets were the legitimate holdings of the Libyan State funds, invested in blue-chip stocks like Pearson and global banking giants. By framing a diversified state portfolio as ‘criminal proceeds’, Epstein’s people and their intelligence associates sought a legal loophole to bypass UN sanctions and extract a ‘contingency fee’ from wealth that belonged to the Libyan people – not a single family.

This strategy of criminalizing state assets was particularly aggressive across the African continent. During the 2011 chaos, persistent rumors (often fed by Western intelligence) portrayed the Libya Africa Investment Portfolio as Gaddafi’s personal slush fund rather than a legitimate development vehicle.

This narrative reached its peak with allegations involving former South African President Jacob Zuma. Claims surfaced that Zuma had received $30 million in cash (and even stashes of gold and diamonds) from the late Libyan leader for “safe keeping.” Although Zuma repeatedly and sarcastically denied these claims, noting that he would hardly be struggling with legal fees if he possessed this fortune, the ‘ghost story’ of the ‘Gaddafi Trillions’ served a vital purpose. It allowed shadow players like Epstein to treat the continent’s sovereign investments as ‘missing treasure’ up for grabs rather than state-owned assets that should have remained under the protection of international law.

The true danger of Epstein’s ‘New York Optics’ play was an attempt to formalize a shadow guardianship over Libya’s sovereign institutions before they could even be rebuilt. By targeting the individuals tasked with negotiating the Goldman Sachs settlement, Epstein was looking to establish a precedent when private, unaccountable fixers would manage the nation’s legal disputes.

This was a direct assault on Libya’s financial sovereignty, after the assault on its political sovereignty by the NATO military invasion. While the United Nations mission (UNSMIL) and international community spoke of ‘transitioning to democracy’, Epstein’s documents reveal a parallel reality: A race to ensure that the LIA remained a black box controlled by Manhattan-based intermediaries. This interference likely contributed to the years of litigation and internal divisions that have kept billions of dollars in state wealth effectively paralyzed – leaving the Libyan people to pay the price for a ‘recovery’ process that was designed by predators for predators.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this intervention is that it was built on a financial phantom. For 15 years, the international community has been regaled with tales of ‘Gaddafi’s hidden trillions’ – a narrative Epstein’s network eagerly exploited to justify their ‘recovery’ services. Yet, the 2026 reality remains stark: Not a single personal bank account or secret stash belonging to the late Muammar Gaddafi has ever been found. The billions frozen in the West are, and always were, the documented institutional assets of the LIA. LIA was created in 2006 to, among other portfolios, invest oil money for poor families in the country.

Ironically, while the West portrayed the late Gaddafi as a man hoarding the nation’s wealth, the historical record shows a very different intent. As early as February 2009, Gaddafi publicly advocated for a radical plan to dismantle the state’s administrative corruption by distributing oil wealth directly to the Libyan people. He argued that wealth should be placed in the hands of the citizens to manage their own affairs – a proposal that faced stiff resistance from the very bureaucracy that later collapsed in 2011. By framing this advocate of wealth distribution as a common thief, Epstein’s associates created the necessary moral cover to target the state’s sovereign capital. They replaced a plan for national empowerment with a scheme for private plunder.

The predatory interest of figures such as Epstein was merely the tip of a much larger iceberg in a post-2011 landscape defined by systematic, state-sponsored pillage. While the international community remained publicly fixated on ‘frozen’ overseas assets, the domestic reality was a violent hemorrhaging of national wealth. According to reports from the Libyan Audit Bureau and various transparency watchdogs, it is estimated that between $100 billion and $200 billion has vanished into a black hole of corruption, institutional waste, and direct theft since the fall of the state in 2011.

This corruption is not merely an internal failure; it is fueled by the very lack of oversight that the West’s ‘liberation’ of Libya enabled – and that Epstein’s ‘private recovery’ schemes sought to exploit. A primary engine for this grand-scale theft is the Central Bank of Libya and its notorious Letters of Credit system. Experts argue that this mechanism has been weaponized to siphon off billions through fraudulent imports – where hard currency is secured at official rates for shipments of ‘goods’ that often never even arrive. The scale of this drain is staggering: In one single 13-week period in 2021, $2.5 billion in letters of credit were issued, with a massive portion of that wealth simply disappearing into the shadow economy.

[…]

Via https://rt-english.com/africa/634484-libya-nato-invasion-and-epstein/

The US has a secret plan for Libya. It will backfire

Posted on by
Reply
The US has a secret plan for Libya. It will backfire
Massad Boulos ©  Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
By Mustafa Fetouri
29 Aug, 2026
The Boulos initiative fails at its core by treating Libya as a corporate asset rather than a sovereign nation

 For nearly a year, Massad Boulos, US President Donald Trump’s senior advisor on Arab, Middle Eastern, and African Affairs, has aggressively pursued a diplomatic circuit connecting Tripoli, Benghazi, Paris, Rome, and Abu Dhabi. His primary objective is to push a transactional political settlement designed to resolve Libya’s administrative paralysis and the internal west-east divide by formalizing an alliance between the country’s rival power centers.

Taking shape behind closed doors since last September, first in Rome then across other capitals, the core mechanism of this US-brokered blueprint is a restructuring of the executive presidency: placing Saddam Haftar (Commander of Ground Forces in eastern Libya and deputy to his father) at the helm of a reformed Presidential Council, while keeping Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh as Prime Minister. Rather than fostering a democratic transition, the framework accepts state fragmentation as a permanent reality, securing the Dbeibeh administration in the west and the Haftar family network in the east as a dynastic duopoly.

To pave the way for such initiatives, Washington has leveraged preliminary milestones. In April, Boulos helped broker a record 190 billion dinar unified budget agreement – the first in Libya since 2014. At the same time, joint military maneuvers were executed in Sirte under AFRICOM’s Flintlock exercises, bringing together east and west forces alongside participation from Italy and over a dozen African nations.

Treating this unwritten transactional design as a national settlement fundamentally misreads the crisis.

Rather than establishing a legally grounded framework for general elections or dismantling entrenched militia networks, the arrangement codifies an elite duopoly. By relying on temporary financial distributions and supervised unified military drills to broker a top-down truce, Washington is mistaking a fragile pact between ruling families for actual state-building – guaranteeing that Libya’s hydrocarbon wealth continues to line the pockets of an entrenched cartel at the expense of its people.

Crucially, the Boulos initiative operates as an unwritten diplomatic push devoid of statutory grounding. By ignoring the foundational UN Security Council resolutions that grant legal mandate to external mediation, Washington’s ad-hoc gamble lacks the institutional backing required to bind local actors. Furthermore, the plan offers no long-term enforcement mechanisms. It relies on current US political backing and provides no protocol if the newly installed executives simply refuse to vacate power after the proposed two-to-three-year interim.

Without a universally accepted arbiter to compel compliance, the initiative risks becoming a dangerous power trap, leaving Libya vulnerable to renewed confrontation the moment external priorities shift.

This bilateral push also directly collides with the ongoing UN-led mediation process overseen by the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). While the UN’s incremental track has certainly been slow and struggled to deliver a breakthrough, it remains anchored in UNSC mandates and operates through recognized, albeit heavily discredited, domestic institutions – such as the House of Representatives and the High Council of State. By attempting to bypass these constitutional bodies in favor of an elite shortcut, Washington risks completely undermining the delicate institutional consensus UNSMIL has spent years attempting to build. Replacing a broad-based, rules-driven process with a fast-tracked bargain creates a parallel route that further fragments international diplomatic efforts and deepens institutional paralysis.

The fundamental flaw of the American initiative lies in its false equivalence between the political dynamics of eastern and western Libya. While the eastern region serves as a traditional stronghold for the Haftar family, western Libya presents a fragmented power balance. Prime Minister Dbeibeh exercises no absolute command over the west, operating instead through fragile networks and pacts with autonomous armed factions, including within his own home city of Misrata.

This domestic resistance exploded into the open on July 5, when Misrata’s military and civic coalitions issued a condemnation of Washington’s plan, rejecting any settlement that involves the Haftar family. When Boulos visited the commercial hub on July 7 to smooth over opposition, local elders and municipal leaders refused to endorse an unwritten deal. Dbeibeh seems to lack the authority to deliver western compliance, and a pact struck in foreign capitals cannot override the deep-seated opposition of the ground forces and local communities required to sustain it.

Beyond its immediate political flaws, the broader framework is viewed domestically as a mechanism designed to help the Haftar and Dbeibeh networks establish a permanent political dynasty, dividing the country’s state apparatus and economic assets strictly between themselves. Crucially, the plan contains no timelines for when, or if, national legislative and presidential elections ever take place.

This omission ignores the aspirations of the more than 2.8 million registered Libyan voters who picked up their electoral cards for the shelved 2021 polls, eager to restore popular legitimacy to their governance institutions. Instead of creating a bridge toward a democratic transition, Washington’s framework codifies the status quo, deferring the Libyan people’s right to choose their own leaders.

Another major obstacle confronting Boulos’s initiative is that Libya remains a deeply contested theater for regional heavyweights – notably Ankara, Cairo, Abu Dhabi, and Moscow – who are navigating the proposed deal with extreme caution while protecting their security, military, and economic footholds. Türkiye maintains a military presence across key bases in the west alongside extensive commercial interests, Egypt views eastern Libya as a non-negotiable border security perimeter, the UAE manages influential financial and energy networks, and Russia retains military and diplomatic leverage across both divides. While Washington seeks to build momentum through parallel diplomatic and economic pressure, these actors seem to have signaled (based on fragmented media reports) a reluctance to reshape their strategies. Instead, they are maintaining a wait-and-see stance, preferring to withhold definitive positions until an official plan is formally presented.

Even if Washington succeeds in cobbling together a consensus between Tripoli and Benghazi, the Boulos framework faces a structural barrier: the UN Security Council. Because the initiative deliberately bypassed the UN-facilitated inter-Libyan tracks, any final arrangement must eventually seek international legitimacy and statutory backing through a new UN resolution to replace existing mandates. In the Security Council, however, Russia holds a permanent veto. By ignoring Russian interests and attempting to unilaterally reorder Libya’s security architecture, Washington has designed a blueprint that can be easily decapitated at the UN table, leaving its Libyan signatories legally unsanctioned.

The core failure of the Boulos initiative is that it approaches Libya like a corporate asset undergoing restructuring rather than a sovereign state in desperate need of constitutional legitimacy. Instead of fulfilling the transition to democracy promised in 2011, when the US and its NATO allies intervened only to trigger a relentless free fall ever since, this diplomatic blueprint manages the ruins. It substitutes a genuine political horizon with an arrangement among the ruling elite. For the Libyan public, abandoned without peace or popular sovereignty, it is a pause that leaves the country vulnerable to renewed warfare the instant the bargain fractures.

Via https://rt-english.com/africa/644769-why-us-gamble-in-libya-fails/

Ruined by NATO, divided without Gaddafi: Can Libya’s new deal hold?

Posted on by
Reply
Ruined by NATO, divided without Gaddafi: Can Libya’s new deal hold?
©  X/@UNSMILibya
By Mustafa Fetouri
21 Oct, 2026 
In an effort to break years of political deadlock, the UN has set up a ‘4+4’ committee, bringing together Libya’s rival factions

The long-awaited agreement between Libya’s rival factions was finally signed on August 30 under the auspices of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). On that day, the mission gathered the two negotiating delegations at its Tripoli headquarters to formalize the text ironed out during earlier rounds of talks in Rome and Tunis. UNSMIL invited foreign diplomats, media representatives, and Libyan delegations to the event, where UN Special Representative Hanna Tetteh hailed the accord in her opening remarks as “another important milestone in Libya’s journey toward stability and national unity.”

This, however, bore a resemblance to previous diplomatic milestones – most notably the 2015 Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) signed in Skhirat, Morocco. The LPA established the rules of the political game in the fractured country; rules to which none of the domestic political actors seem fully committed, yet from which none completely depart. In a sense, Skhirat remains the ultimate reference point for every subsequent UN roadmap in Libya.

In the vacuum left by the 2011 NATO intervention and the brutal murder of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has seen a continuous parade of diplomatic accords. Yet the fundamental problem has never been a shortage of roadmaps, but rather their consolidation into nationally accepted political facts that elites cannot simply manipulate at will.

The August 30 agreement has two main parts. The first is restructuring the High National Elections Commission (HNEC), the agency in charge of organizing elections. In practice, this means replacing its leadership to settle disputes over appointments and regional representation. Although these changes were long delayed by regional quotas and political patronage stemming from the 2015 Skhirat agreement, rivals can still negotiate them with relative ease.

The 24-month timeline to hold elections was also established. However, the countdown is designed to govern the transition only once a single, unified executive authority and unified national institutions are established to oversee the voting process.

The second component concerns the central objective of UNSMIL’s latest roadmap: agreeing on viable election laws, an issue on which the UN has failed to make meaningful progress since the collapse of the planned 2021 elections.

Libya remains divided between rival power centers: the Government of National Unity (GNU), led by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah in Tripoli, the western part of the country, and the Libyan National Army (LNA) command in the east led by General Khalifa Haftar. These exist alongside two political institutions: the Tripoli-based High Council of state (HCS) and the eastern-based House of Representatives (HoR). To break the deadlock, UNSMIL established a smaller negotiating group known as the ‘Smaller Convening’, or the ‘4+4’. It brings together eight representatives from the GNU, Haftar’s military command, the HCS, and the HoR.

This mechanism directly mirrors the ill-fated 2021 Geneva process, Libyan Political Dialogue Framework, which ultimately hardened Libya’s institutional divide and brought the country closer to a permanent de facto partition than at any point since its formal unification in 1951. The UN Security Council issued a delayed presidential statement endorsing the deal, and thus repeating a familiar ritual that seems to elevates elite compromise over structural reform. Seeking to seize the political initiative, Speaker Aguila Saleh brought the 4+4 framework to the HoR floor for an immediate vote where it was approved by the majority of members.

The ‘4+4’ format developed alongside (and ultimately eclipsed) UNSMIL’s broader Structured Dialogue. Even before those conclusions were finalized, UNSMIL was already facilitating a parallel ‘Smaller Convening’ behind closed doors – the 4+4 was born. As Hanna Tetteh told the Security Council on June 18, the explicit goal of this smaller format was to bypass the paralysis between the legislative bodies and force an accord on the roadmap’s first two steps: reconstituting the elections commission’s board and resolving the contested electoral framework. Thus, the ‘4+4’ was a deliberate strategy to concentrate decision-making among the political and military figures deemed capable of enforcing an outcome.

After the HoR approved the agreement on September 14, the HCS formally rejected it on October 5, along with the related laws and decisions issued by the House, arguing that they bypassed the constitutional, legal and consensual frameworks governing the political process. In her October 14 briefing to the UN Security Council, Tetteh acknowledged this rejection but maintained that the agreement offers an actionable path to presidential and legislative elections under a single, unified executive authority within 24 months.

She also announced that UNSMIL would meet members of the 4+4 committee later this month to examine the possibility of establishing a broadly representative national mechanism under Article 5 of the agreement in consultation with the Security Council. This proposal implicitly acknowledges that the 4+4 mini-dialogue alone may not be sufficient to advance the roadmap.

Another significant development is the removal of Aguila Saleh as speaker of the HoR after 12 years in office. On October 7, the eastern-based parliament elected Al-Salhin Abdulnabi as his successor, ending Saleh’s long tenure amid growing discontent over his leadership. The change is particularly significant because Saleh had been accused of being a prominent obstacle to previous attempts to move Libya’s political process forward. Tetteh acknowledged the transition, expressing her appreciation to Saleh for “his leadership and engagement over his 12-year tenure of service.” Her emphasis on the change in parliamentary leadership is noteworthy: The departure of a figure long associated with resistance to political roadmaps could create new room for maneuver, although it does not by itself guarantee that the House will cooperate with the UN initiative or that the entrenched political divisions will be overcome.

Ultimately, the structural core of the August 30 agreement rests on a fundamental contradiction: 4+4 does not equal 1. Combining four delegates from Tripoli’s political-institutional structures, including representatives of the HCS, with four delegates representing the eastern power structure in Benghazi does not produce a unified state. Instead, it seems to function as a shared enterprise in which rival political elites, rather than competing to build a single nation, recognize that their mutual survival depends on dividing power and maintaining exclusive control over the state apparatus.

Setting a 24-month timetable neither offers a guarantee that elections will actually occur; instead, it grants entrenched factions another two years of status quo protection without imposing any penalty for non-compliance.

Still, the UN Security Council appeared to endorse the latest UNSMIL plan. Following Tetteh’s briefing on October 14, the Council reaffirmed its support for the agreement, despite concerns over its implementation and the High Council of State’s rejection.

By prioritizing elite consensus over an enforceable constitutional baseline, the international community risks continuing to repeat a flawed equation. Until UNSMIL and foreign powers break this cycle and align their strategy with the Libyan public’s demand for genuine democratic renewal, every new agreement risks becoming another monument to the status quo. In the end, the ‘4+4’ framework offers no viable fallback or alternative path forward if it fails.

Last week, the UNSC did not vote to extend UNSMIL’s mandate, which expires on October 31. However, this is largely a technicality, since the Council has already approved UNSMIL’s roadmap.

Via https://rt-english.com/africa/647476-libya-rival-factions-agreement/

Trump accuses Kiev of reselling American arms ahead of congressional еlections

Posted on by
2

By Ahmed Adel

19 October 2026

Ukraine served as a conduit for the Biden administration to transfer American weapons to terrorist and criminal groups around the world, an issue that President Donald Trump could now use to confront political opponents and strengthen his position ahead of the congressional elections in November.

Trump accused Kiev of reselling American missiles and military equipment that Ukraine received during Biden’s administration and questioned the control over American military aid, claiming some of the delivered armaments were resold. This has made Ukraine central to the midterm elections, not only because of weapons resales and the misuse of American military aid, but also because of Volodymyr Zelensky’s political alliance with the Democratic Party.

Speaking about the Democrats’ relationship with Zelensky, the United States president said in a Newsmax interview with host Rob Finnerty aired on October 16 that “they gave them massive amount of Patriots, Tomahawks, everything. And they didn’t make him pay.”

“He gave hundreds of probably $350 billion worth of equipment and cash to Ukraine. Where is the cash that we gave to Ukraine? Where are all of those? Where is all the equipment? You know, people who are selling that equipment? Biden was giving them missiles, and they were being sold on the open market — after they went to Ukraine,” Trump added.

Patriot and Tomahawk missiles require dedicated launch systems.

Patriots can be used only with the anti-aircraft missile system’s launchers, whereas Tomahawks use the MK-41 launch system installed on US Navy ships. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zelensky could have sold them on the black market. However, other weapons Biden repeatedly delivered to Zelensky ended up on the black market.

Although an American commission the Biden administration engaged to investigate allegations of illegal diversion of weapons delivered to Ukraine found no confirmation of those claims, weapons and ammunition of American manufacture were found in the hands of armed groups in the Middle East. Based on the serial numbers, they appear to belong to the same series as those Zelensky received. This is not the open market but the black market, including the dark web. While Biden was actively delivering weapons, Ukraine was used as a transit point to deliver those weapons to terrorist groups operating in the Middle East and Africa.

The US, through the CIA, did not publicly announce it, and it was also impossible to prove that the intelligence agency directly supplied terrorist groups with weapons. Ukraine was well suited to this role because it did so through CIA channels while also profiting from it.

Trump is raising this issue, claiming that Ukraine independently tried to trade weapons through the dark web. Through the dark web, all kinds of armaments were sold: grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft missile systems, and even Stinger missiles.

American weapons also reached Latin America through various channels, ending up in the hands of drug cartels. Cartels in Colombia and other Latin American countries actively sent fighters to Ukraine for combat training. It is possible that, in exchange for sending such militants to Ukraine, these criminal groups in Latin America received American-made weapons.

Trump is raising the issue of the illegal arms trade to Ukraine not without reason, but to use it against the Democrats ahead of the congressional elections. Since Zelensky is now actively trying to interfere in American elections and opposing Trump in various ways, Trump has decided to bring this issue to the fore. The Democrats cannot stop this information from spreading because Congress is in recess until November 8. During the election period, Trump is likely to take an anti-Ukrainian stance, since Kiev has sided with the Democrats and the political forces currently opposing him.

After Trump’s mid-October diesel deal with Russia, which eased sanctions so Moscow could supply large volumes of diesel to global markets, and after he blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries for high fuel prices ahead of the US midterms, public exchanges turned sharply critical. Trump repeatedly accused Zelensky of obstructing peace, saying Ukraine should “get a new president,” that Zelensky “better damn well stop” hitting refineries, that he “doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did,” and that the strikes were a “disgrace” hurting American farmers and global diesel markets. He also unilaterally declared an “energy ceasefire” and later waived additional sanctions on Russia while claiming “great progress” in talks.

Zelensky rejected the diesel deal as a “weak,” “unfair,” and “gift” to Russian President Vladimir Putin that would fund the war. He said he felt blindsided, insisted that any energy de-escalation must be reciprocal, declared the unilateral pause on refinery strikes over, called Putin “real evil,” questioned how Trump could be “friends with him,” and continued to urge greater US pressure on Moscow while speaking with Trump’s envoys amid ongoing mutual energy strikes.

With this latest verbal spat between the two leaders, Zelensky will likely coordinate his moves against Trump with the Democrats and his European allies. The current confrontation between Trump and Zelensky is tied not only to the Ukraine War but also to the political confrontation between Trump and the so-called Deep State, which is closely aligned with the Democrats.

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-accuses-kiev-of-reselling-american-arms-ahead-of-congressional-%d0%b5lections/5944128

US Probing Ukraine’s Narco Links to Mexican Drug Cartels

Posted on by
Reply
Kiev - Sputnik International, 1920, 20.10.2026

© SERGEI SUPINSKY

Sputnik International

Volodymyr Zelensky’s office has learned that US law enforcement agencies have obtained information about cooperation between the Ukrainian government and Mexican drug cartels, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).

“According to information received by the SVR, a new wave of panic has erupted in Kiev. The Ukrainian president’s office has learned that US law enforcement agencies, while investigating the illegal activities of Mexican drug cartels, obtained information about their cooperation with representatives of Volodymyr Zelensky’s government,” the statement said.

Key points:

US investigators discovered that Mexican criminal groups had been sending their members to Ukraine for drone warfare training over an extended period

At least 80 individuals have been identified as having undergone such training with the Ukrainian Armed Forces

Payments for the training were transferred to officials close to Zelensky, using proceeds from illegal drug sales in the US.

“The office of the Ukrainian president is aware that the appearance of trained FPV drone operators in the ranks of drug cartels poses risks to the lives of American law enforcement officers involved in anti-drug trafficking operations on the border with Mexico. With this in mind, Zelensky’s cooperation with drug cartels may become another ‘nail in the coffin’ of his political career,” the SVR said.

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20261020/us-probing-ukraines-narco-links-to-mexican-drug-cartels—russian-foreign-intel-1124905499.html

Ukraine deployed thousands of microdrones in Iraqi Kurdistan

Posted on by
Reply

A soldier of Ukraine’s Omega Special Purpose Center demonstrate a Chipa net launcher by Ukrainian tech company Bluebird against an attacking FPV drone

By Al Mayadeen English

20 OCT 2026

An Iranian security source reveals that Kiev deployed thousands of microdrones in Iraqi Kurdistan and established a regional network, prompting Tehran to weigh a response.

Ukraine has deployed drone personnel and thousands of microdrones across countries surrounding Iran, including Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, an Iranian security source told Tasnim News Agency, highlighting the deployments as part of a broader network of hostile activities directed against Tehran.

According to the security source, Kiev had established an operational microdrone network across the region, with thousands of drones deployed in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region.

The source withheld the names of the countries hosting Ukrainian personnel and equipment, stating that the information remained confidential and would be disclosed in due course.

Tehran preparing appropriate response

The Iranian security source further said Tehran considers Ukraine’s activities part of the broader hostile actions pursued by Europe and NATO against Iran, adding that Iranian authorities are fully aware of Kiev’s operations.

Tehran, according to the source, is considering an appropriate response to the deployments, which it stressed as a security threat.

Describing the operation as a “failed attempt and an embarrassment” for Ukraine, the source stressed that Iran remains aware of Kiev’s activities and their implications for regional security.

The bigger picture

The deployment comes amid longstanding security concerns over armed Kurdish separatist groups operating along Iran’s western border and growing tensions between Tehran and Kiev following a Ukrainian attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea.

Baghdad, Tehran, and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) signed a security agreement in March 2023 requiring Iranian Kurdish separatist groups to disarm and relocate away from the Iraq-Iran border.

The agreement also obliges Iraqi authorities to prevent the groups from using Iraqi territory to launch military operations against Iran. While Baghdad and the KRG have fulfilled their obligations, sources told Al Mayadeen that four or five Iranian separatist groups continue to defy the agreement and carry out provocations along the border.

The remaining groups have continued their activities despite guarantees offered by the KRG, with Al Mayadeen Plus reporting in September that they had refused to leave their positions.

Tehran has responded to the separatist groups with missile and drone strikes, as well as ground operations targeting positions in Erbil and Sulaymaniyah. In July, Iranian strikes martyred nine members of the Komala Party. Iran is also building a security wall extending more than 250 kilometers along its border with the Kurdistan Region.

These security concerns have unfolded alongside a deterioration in relations between Iran and Ukraine. In July, Tehran condemned a Ukrainian attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea that killed one sailor and injured another. Iran’s Foreign Ministry characterized the strike as an act of aggression and a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, warning that it could widen the scope of the war.

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/ukraine-deployed-thousands-of-microdrones-in-iraqi-kurdistan

Nearly half US active-duty troops oppose war on Iran

Posted on by
2

(Photo credit: Allison Robbert/AP)

The Cradle

OCT 20, 2026

The findings mirror a broader collapse in support for the war, as Trump’s approval falls to a record low ahead of the midterms

Nearly half of all US active-duty service members oppose the military’s role in the US-Israeli war on Iran, according to a poll conducted by Change Research for veteran-led advocacy group Common Defense between 15 and 28 September.

The poll surveyed over 730 active-duty US soldiers, immediate family members, and veterans and found that 49 percent of all respondents opposed the war, against 44 percent who backed it.

Military families rejected the war by a 38-point margin and active-duty troops by 16 points, while military veterans were the only group to support it, with 53 percent for to 44 percent against.

Beyond Iran, a majority of respondents also opposed deploying US forces to back Israel’s military aggression against Gaza and Lebanon.

Respondents also ranked deployment lengths and the health, safety, and welfare of troops in the war on Iran among the top issues Congress should investigate.

The findings mirror a broader collapse in public support for the US war on Iran, as soaring fuel prices, mounting economic strain, and US President Donald Trump’s sinking approval ratings fuel growing anger at home, weeks ahead of midterm elections.

A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll published on 19 October put Trump’s approval rating at 33 percent, the lowest ever recorded, with 65 percent of respondents calling the decision to take military action against Iran a mistake.

Seven in 10 now say gasoline is unaffordable, after the war choked off energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

With the midterms approaching, a growing number of Republican lawmakers are blaming Trump’s Iran war, fuel prices, and tariffs for their party’s likely loss of Congress.

Trump’s own base has also been wavering, with Republican approval of his handling of the war on Iran falling from 73 percent in March to 60 percent in September, according to a CNN/SSRS poll.

On 1 September, a University of Massachusetts Amherst survey put Trump’s approval at a record low of 32 percent, with 68 percent saying he had mishandled the war on Iran, as inflation fueled by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz drove up prices at home.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/nearly-half-of-all-us-active-duty-troops-oppose-war-on-iran-poll

What’s Really Happening at the Iran-Pakistan Border

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no way to fight the Empire without bypassing its control of the international financial system.

Pepe Escobar • October 19, 2026

All hell is already breaking loose when it comes to probing what is exactly taking place related to the latest, definitely murky U.S.-linked movements in Pakistani land and sea. After an initial assessment at Transition Protocol – which avowedly did not provide all the necessary answers – we dug deeper into a way more comprehensive examination supported by several sources.

What we are watching across several nodes of extremely sensitive Iran-Pakistan overland connectivity is not a blanket border shutdown; but a surgical, two-track balancing act by Islamabad between Washington’s tremendous financial vise and Tehran’s strategic lifeline.

So here’s where it all stands – compounding the verified record with our latest consultations.

The key point: the regulatory trigger was a banking sanctions move, not just border security.

While provincial officials in Balochistan publicly framed Saturday’s halt at two key nodes, Taftan and Gabd–Rimdan, around security, counterterrorism, and anti-smuggling, what matters most is the exact mechanism around a memorandum issued last Friday by the Pakistani Ministry of Commerce.

That immediately revoked an October 3 extension of the Electronic Import Form (EIF) waiver for goods imported from Iran, and coincided with Islamabad’s instruction to close the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) immigration gate at Taftan.

What is key is that without the EIF waiver, Pakistani importers must process Iranian purchases through formal Pakistani banking channels – which U.S. sanctions, of course, make absolutely impossible.

Peyman Sanandaji, head of the Transportation Commission at the Tehran Chamber of Commerce, confirmed on the record that it is banking sanctions compliance (ditching the EIF) that halted Iranian exports into Pakistan.

The immediate shock at the formal gates was quite something: more than 4,000 tons of daily Iranian LPG imports through Gabd–Rimdan are at risk. Former Quetta Chamber of Commerce president Ayoub Miryani reported that over 2,000 containers are stranded at Gabd–Rimdan alone, with hundreds more freight trucks backed up at Taftan.

So why is this happening now? Because of the nasty convergence between the October 7 IMF tranche Pakistan had to pay, and the imperial U.S. Treasury “Operation Economic Outcast”.

Under Operation Economic Outcast, Washington gave third countries a “defined timeline to shut down” Iran-related commercial lifelines or face expulsion from the U.S. financial system. That was followed by OFAC’s October 1 designations against Iran’s overland rail and industrial networks and October 8 actions against 17 shadow-fleet tankers.

But then, on October 7 – only nine days before the Ministry of Commerce revoked the EIF waiver – Islamabad reached an agreement with the IMF on the Fourth Review of its Extended Fund Facility to unlock $1.21 billion. That still requires IMF Executive Board approval.

Of course there is no public document showing a direct U.S. or IMF order to close Iran-Pakistan borders. But sources in Islamabad stressed that leaving an open-ended banking-instrument waiver on the books ahead of the IMF Board vote had become an untenable sanctions vulnerability for Pakistan.

Islamabad sources are adamant that the move was paired with genuine counter-sabotage concerns and quietly coordinated between Islamabad and Tehran (italics mine) so the pause would not rupture bilateral ties.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei publicly called the disruption a temporary pause due to “technical issues” and “precautionary measures”.

Pakistani official sources, for their part, insisted that the tightened controls are a joint counterterrorism measure reflecting “mutual understanding” with Tehran after a spike in Sistan-Balochistan attacks; highway ambushes; and an October 11 maritime attack on Pakistan Coast Guard boats off Jiwani – which Pakistani officials attributed to “foreign actors” seeking to sabotage Pakistan’s mediation of the Iran peace deal.

Back to the same old pattern of Salafi-jihadis [CIA backed freedom fighters] weaponized and manipulated by the usual suspects.

The only publicly confirmed telephone call between Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi took place on Sunday, October 18 – two days after the October 16 memorandum – and its official readouts mention only regional diplomacy and the Baghdad OIC meeting.

So prior coordination at the Dar–Araghchi Foreign Minister level and specific sabotage arrests therefore are part of our own reporting.

Asymmetric food exports and informal routes

In a nutshell, stuff is still moving across borders. Islamabad deliberately left alive Pakistani perishables and food exports to Iran. Essential perishables – including tomatoes, potatoes, and onions – continue to move, alongside traditional oil and fuel flows across the porous 909-km border.

The regulatory record explains why: 8 months ago, Pakistan enacted a separate banking-instrument waiver specifically for 10 food exports to Iran by land (explicitly listing rice, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, meat, and fruit) plus pharmaceuticals.

Tehran’s Chamber of Commerce confirmed this past Saturday that while Iranian exports to Pakistan are stalled by the EIF rule, imports from Pakistan into Iran are continuing, and informal fuel and border trade across Balochistan already operates at an estimated $800 million to over $1 billion annually outside formal customs.

Special attention should be placed on the ports of Gwadar and Karachi, and the overall China–Iran Transit Architecture. Third-country and China-Iran transit through Pakistan, according to our sources, remains protected.

On a legal level, a document detailing Pakistan’s transit of goods established six designated overland transit corridors linking Gwadar, Karachi, and Port Qasim to Gabd and Taftan for third-country cargo bound for Iran under a bank guarantee.

And a Federal Board of Revenue’s notification this past June formally designated Taftan railway station as a Land Customs Station, with Iranian and Pakistani ministers pitching the rail corridor to link China to Iran and Europe.

However, two very complicated operational constraints remain in place.

The Quetta-Taftan rail modernization is still listed officially as a planned upgrade; and OFAC’s October 1 designation of the Islamic Republic of Iran Railway Company (RAI) was explicitly designed to choke Tehran’s shift from blockaded sea lanes to rail.

To sum it all up: it takes supreme skill to face The Empire of Piracy. Islamabad has executed a classic, calibrated maneuver: visibly revoking the formal EIF import waiver at Taftan and Gabd–Rimdan to insulate its pending $1.21 billion IMF tranche and Pakistani banks from U.S. Treasury secondary sanctions.

And all the while keeping Pakistani food exports, informal border valves, and third-country transit frameworks alive with Tehran.

Whether this remains a brief administrative reset or hardens into a longer choke point will be decided by three indicators over the next fortnight:

  1. A modified EIF or barter notification from the Commerce Ministry.
  2. Separate customs clearance for Gwadar/Karachi transit cargo.
  3. Documented freight movements across the Taftan–Zahedan rail link.

May the lesson be imprinted on rare earths for the whole Global South to ponder: there’s no way to fight the Empire without bypassing its control of the international financial system.

Via https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/10/19/exclusive-whats-really-happening-at-iran-pakistan-border/