The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Author Archives: stuartbramhall

Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

The End of Egypt’s Old Kingdom

Posted on by
Reply

Great Sphinx of Giza - most ancient giant sculpture | Wondermondo

Episode 9 The End of the Old Kingdom

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty

Snefaru was the first pharaoh in the Fourth Dynasty. He was followed by Knufu, who built the Great Pyramid (see How the Great Pyramid of Giza Was Built),  who was followed by Djedefre (2266-2258 BC), who started, but never completed, his own pyramid.* The latter was followed Chephren (2558-2532 BC), who abandoned an attempt to build a smaller pyramid at Giza when his crew ran into an enormous bolder while building the causeway that would connect it to Giza’s valley temple. So he built  the Sphinx (which has the body of a lion with Chepren’s head), instead.*

Chephren’s grandson Menkaure (2532-2503 BC) also built a pyramid on the Giza plateau. It’s one-fifth the size of the Great Pyramid and lacks a limestone casing because it was never finished.

His son Sheseskaf (2503-2498 BC) returned to Saqqara to build a mastaba and a few smaller pyramids for his queens.

Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty

Userkaf (2498-2345 BC) was the first pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty. Under his reign, the Egyptian religion turned to sun worship, and he built the first solar temple. All pharaohs after Userk after Userkaf incorporate sun (“ra” or “re”) into their name.

Unas, the last Fifth Dynasty pharaoh, built a pyramid at Segar.

Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty

The pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty built some small pyramids at Saqqara that at present look more like natural hills.

Tet (2345-2333B BC) built a small pyramid inscribed with hieroglyph texts. There’s evidence the nobles around the pharaoh were gaining in wealth, and a few built mastaba larger than the pharaoh’s.

During the Sixth Dynasty, the mereruka, some of Egypt’s richest nobles, wore starched kilts to distinguish themselves from commoners.

The last pharaoh of the Old Kingdom was Pepi II, Egypt longest reigning monarch (94 years). Brier believes Pepi’s advanced age (he died at 98) and feebleness (98) may relate in some way to the collapse of the old kingdom.

*Egyptian pharaohs built pyramids to help ensure their resurrection after death. They left inscriptions on the inner walls that describe their life exploits (our primary source of ancient Egyptian history), as well magic spells for them to recite to help transport them to the afterlife.

*Brier disputes speculation by some geologists the Sphinx dates back to 10,000 BC based on apparent “weathering” signifying it’s construction in a wet climate prior to the birth of the Sahara. The Sphinx wears a cloth headdress typical  of Fourth Dynasty pharaohs and also has a clear chin strap (consistent with the false beards they wore – part of the Sphinx’s false beard is in a library in Cairo and part in the British Museum).

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/1492791/1492813

EPA Rule Could Put Small Meat Processors Out of Business — and Leave Consumers Out in the Cold

Posted on by
2

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing new limits on how much nitrogen, phosphate and other pollutants meat processing facilities can discharge into surface waters.

The EPA said the proposed rule change will “improve water quality and protect human health and the environment.”

But some critics argue it also will hurt small processing facilities that won’t be able to afford the upgrades required to comply with the new rule.

Small facilities will either shut down, resulting in fewer local meat sources for consumers. Or they’ll sell out larger corporations, contributing to even greater consolidation in the meat industry.

Describing it as “a direct attack on the buy local foods movement” and local meat producers, American Stewards of Liberty, the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition and other organizations submitted comments opposing the proposed rule.

Small meat producers ‘unable to sustain these costs’

Representatives of the two groups told The Defender why they opposed the EPA’s proposal. Tracey Barton, Kansas Natural Resource Coalition’s executive director, said:

“The proposed EPA rule will require costly upgrades for meat processing facilities. The anticipated cost is $300,000-$400,000 for the initial upgrade with annual maintenance fees of $100,000.

“In Kansas, many small meat processors are unable to sustain these costs and will be forced to close their doors. For the facilities that are able to sustain the increase in capital, the costs will be passed onto farmers/ranchers as well as consumers, driving meat prices, which are at an all-time high, even higher.”

Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, said, “What is very concerning to us is that in the rule, they have several alternatives … The most extreme of these would apply to, by their own numbers, around 3,700 meat processors. So, that’s going to capture your small local meat processor.”

According to American Stewards of Liberty, the EPA’s current rule, enacted in 1974 and last amended in 2004, applies only to “approximately 150 of the 5,055” small processors in the U.S.

Byfield said the rule would put small processors out of business and add to further concentration in the meat industry:

“The cost of the regulation is what is going to run these small meat processors out of business. It is taking away Americans’ ability to choose if they want to buy their food locally.

“And you probably know there’s a huge movement right now of people very concerned about the consolidation of food in America to where we only have four major meat processors in America, the big guys.”

According to Barton, an estimated 910 million pounds of protein are expected to be removed from the U.S. food supply if the rule change goes through as written.

“There are also indirect negative effects on farmers and ranchers: limiting access to local meat processors, restricting the ability to sell to local consumers and requiring herd reduction or liquidation.”

Howard Vlieger, a member of the board of advisers of GMO/Toxin Free USA, told The Defender the EPA’s proposed rule is devoid of common sense.

“The first question that I would ask is, what is their desired outcome? Is the agency wanting to drive small packers out of business?” he asked.

According to Barton, what prompted the EPA’s proposal was “an environmental sue and settle case,” Cape Fear River Watch et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, which “the EPA settled within four months … agreeing to modify their rules.”

A consortium of environmental organizations filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging most meat processing facilities were not governed by water pollution standards.

As a result of the settlement, the EPA determined that revisions to its water pollution rules for meat processing facilities were “appropriate” — leading to the new proposal.

Byfield said, “The rule isn’t in effect yet” and that “the next step in the process is to go through all those [public] comments … revise their rule based on those comments and then issue a new final rule.”

However, she warned the EPA may skip certain steps.

“Typically, in this process, you have a second comment period … However, what we’ve seen from this administration is, they bypass that second set of comments. We anticipate that they’re going to try and push this rule out as quickly as they can … before the window of the Congressional Review Act kicks in,” Byfield said.

What this means, said Byfield, is that if the administration changes, Congress can review and revoke “anything that was finalized” within 90 legislative days of that time.

Local economies, consumers will suffer

Local economies will suffer if small processing facilities close, Byfield said.

“When a beef is processed in a local meat processing plant, that butcher is buying his groceries there, he’s hiring people there, everybody is turning over their dollar in that community, and that’s what drives that local economy,” Byfield said.

“When you start shutting down industries, that’s one way to dry up a local economy so that people don’t live there anymore,” she added.

Writing on Substack, Dr. Robert Malone said the EPA anticipates the new rules will, at least, “result in the closure of 16 processing facilities across the country … However, on the high side, EPA estimates include an impact range of up to 845 processing facilities.”

Byfield was not optimistic, projecting that many meat processing facilities will be bought out by large companies and subsequently forced to close if the rule takes effect.

“I think that the likely scenario is they’d shut them down, because it makes more sense to spend the $300,000-400,000 in one facility, not in five or six. I mean, that’s a huge cost even to the big guys,” she said.

Vlieger said, “There are many common-sense options that could be utilized that would be cost-efficient and simultaneously utilize the nutrient sources for crop production, but the EPA seemingly wants to regulate small processors to death.”

Large meat processors — particularly concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs — are the ones who benefit from favorable policies, he said.

“Small processing facilities are already at a disadvantage due to the costs for the rendering components of slaughter of all species of meat animals and poultry. Whereas the largest packing companies receive credits for hide and offal, the small processors have an expense to dispose of the offal,” he said, referring to additional revenue large meat packing facilities can earn by selling meat by-products.

“This is an example of the government picking winners and losers. The losers are farmers/ranchers and small meat processors who cannot afford to comply with the capital investment to meet the EPA standards,” Barton said.

Byfield said consumers may be left with fewer options if the rule is passed:

“For those who really are interested in good nutrition and quality, they know the best food is that which is freshest, which was grown locally. That’s where you’re going to get your most nutritious food.

“This would take that option away because that meat processor now, or your local producer, whoever is raising your beef or your lamb or chicken, they’re going to have to travel such a large distance to go to a major processor that it’s going to be unprofitable for them. Or … they’re going to have to increase the price to where it’s out of range for the common citizen to make that choice.”

Byfield said that access to local meat producers also allows consumers to build relationships with farmers and ranchers and to learn what goes into the meat they buy.

“A lot of these local producers will invite you out to their property … And so, you know where your meat’s coming from and you know what it’s being fed, and whether it’s getting mRNA vaccines or some of these other very controversial things … You can see that, and you can monitor it because it’s local,” she said.

“We think people should have the ability to buy their food locally if that’s what they choose,” Byfield said, likening the EPA’s proposal to rules the agency implemented in the 1960s and 1970s that resulted in many small butcher shops going out of business.

“You no longer have that local butcher store,” Byfield said. “Now, you have more regional butcher shops where they have to be large enough so that they’re processing more meat pounds per day, per week, per month, so that they can afford that regulatory burden that’s already there,” Byfield said.

Byfield said that a proposed congressional bill, H.R.7079, also known as the “Beef Act,” would “stop this rule,” urging the public to call their local congressional representatives.

“Additionally, we believe there is going to be an effort to defund the rule through the appropriations process,” Byfield added.

“Consumers need to step up and speak out against these draconian government actions,” Vlieger said. “The number of small farmers is small, and their voice does not carry the weight that varying consumer organizations have.”

“More than ever, it is crucially important to know your farmer and know your food,” Vlieger said.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/epa-rule-small-meat-processors-business-water-pollution/?utm_id=20240419

Whooping Cough Boosters for Adults? The Vaccines Don’t Even Work for Kids

Posted on by
Reply
tdap vaccine bottle with booster block letters written on green background with a hand.

By  Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

NBC News this week reported whooping cough “rising sharply” in some countries and quoted experts warning pregnant moms and parents to vaccinate their kids and adults to get boosters. Experts interviewed by The Defender said the vaccines don’t prevent transmission and come with dangerous side effects.

“We are not seeing anything unusual,” Jasmine Reed, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesperson, told the news outlet.

However, in the same article — “Whooping Cough Rising in Some Countries. Why You May Need a Booster” — NBC contributor Kaitlin Sullivan reported that “outbreaks in Europe, Asia and parts of the U.S. should be a reminder to get vaccinated, experts say.”

Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told NBC the current situation “won’t turn into a pandemic because we have a highly vaccinated population.”

Schaffner added: “However, let’s make sure that pregnant people get vaccinated, that babies are vaccinated on schedule, and the rest of us take the Tdap vaccine every 10 years.”

This is especially necessary to protect infants, who are especially vulnerable to the otherwise typically mild illness, NBC reported.

Experts told The Defender they thought the NBC report was unnecessarily alarming, cited outdated methods for protecting babies, and failed to consider serious and well-known concerns with the safety and efficacy of DTaP and Tdap vaccines.

Pertussis vaccines don’t prevent transmission

Dr. Bob Sears, author of “The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child,” told The Defender that studies have shown the pertussis vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.

“There’s no medical or scientific reason to advise giving the vaccine to any group of people for the purpose of preventing transmission to others,” Sears said.

He added:

“We have whooping cough in our society simply because this is one of several vaccines that doesn’t reduce the spread of its disease. The vaccine simply doesn’t work that way, and no amount of scientific hope or wishful thinking will change that.”

The United Kingdom saw an increase in whooping cough cases in January. According to The BMJ, the spike seen there also occurred in other European countries, but the outbreak primarily affected people ages 15 and older, who are not at high risk from the illness. Only 4% of cases in the recent spike were in infants.

NBC also reported that China had a 15-fold increase in cases in January, part of a variable epidemiology of the disease seen over the last 10 years. That increase amounted to 15,275 cases among a population of over 1.4 billion people.

Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told NBC that the outbreaks and mild isolated cases the agency reported in the San Francisco Bay area, Hawaii and New York are normal and something “we expect to see every year.”

Whooping cough is a highly contagious respiratory illness that manifests as a cold in most people, but it can be serious for newborns who have a very narrow trachea, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internal medicine physician, told The Defender.

Deaths from pertussis are extremely rare, averaging about 10 per year. About 85% of deaths happen in children under two months of age — before babies are even eligible to begin the pertussis vaccination.

Nass said pertussis is extremely common and endemic in the U.S. It tends to be misdiagnosed as cold or flu and medical attention is rarely sought, except for babies.

Current formula needs to be ‘scrapped or reworked’

Dr. Paul Thomas said the NBC article “completely ignores the risk of death from the vaccine, which is documented to be greater than the number of deaths prevented — even before you consider that 50-90% of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome occurs in the week after infant vaccines, of which the DTaP is the most concerning.”

Maternal-fetal medicine expert Dr. James Thorp told The Defender the pertussis vaccine has never been proven to be safe or effective in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

And there have been no long-term studies examining all health outcomes related to the vaccine, Thorp said.

Babies and children currently receive the DTaP vaccine, designed to protect against pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus. People ages 7 and older receive the Tdap booster, designed to protect against diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis.

Thomas, author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years,” said that both DTap and Tdap are old vaccines that rely on recognizing the pertactin protein to develop immunity.

About 85% of pertussis circulating in the U.S. is pertactin-negative making the vaccine at best 15% effective, he said.

The CDC has been tracking changes in the prevalence of bacteria causing whooping cough for years. The most recent CDC data, reported this month, found that the Bordetella parapertussis type of whooping cough has significantly overtaken B. pertussis in prevalence — and research published in Vaccines in March shows the existing vaccines “scarcely provide protection” against this strain.

“This pertussis vaccine needs to either be scrapped or reworked to provide one that is effective,” Thomas said.

“Those vaccinated are now getting pertussis at a much higher rate than those with natural immunity and not vaccinated for pertussis,” he added. “It is the vaccinated who are also most likely to bring pertussis to newborns and put them at risk.”

Vaccinated — not unvaccinated — more likely to give infants pertussis

NBC reported that although the disease poses no serious threat to most adults, adults ought to get vaccinated to protect infants.

The article quotes Schaffner as saying, “Anyone who comes to see the new baby should have had a recent inoculation with Tdap vaccine, to provide a cocoon of protection around that baby.”

But Thomas said the concept of cocooning, “where you vaccinate the adults and children and caregivers in the infant world to provide a cocoon of protection, has been long abandoned as it has failed to protect infants.”

“It turns out those vaccinated still get pertussis and because sometimes it is a less severe infection (a minor vaccine benefit) they are more likely to be around infants and put them at risk for pertussis.”

Nass noted that antibiotics provide some protection against whooping cough transmission, but not against symptoms. And because the disease is misdiagnosed in adults and very mild, few take them.

Thomas said the best approach for parents with an infant — because the disease is relatively harmless after one year — is to avoid indoor crowds and sick visitors.

“Even family and visitors who are not sick should wash their hands with soap and water before touching the baby and not kiss the baby on the face, hands or feet,” he said. “It is worth noting that the worst of the pertussis dangers was largely gone even before the vaccine was introduced to the masses.”

‘No vaccine should be given during pregnancy’

Nass told The Defender that another problem with pertussis vaccine efficacy is that it takes multiple shots — given at ages 2, 4, 6 and 15-18 months — for a child to develop some immunity.

However, children are only really at risk of death from the illness very early in life, before the shots provide any protection.

Thorp said that because the original goal of protecting infants with the vaccine in the first year of life was “a miserable failure” pharmaceutical companies began advocating to give the shots to pregnant women.

In 2012, the CDC first began recommending the TDap vaccine for pregnant women to protect newborn infants, despite the fact that they largely don’t need the diphtheria or tetanus components, Nass said.

“The CDC could have recommended manufacturers make just a pertussis vaccine for this purpose, but chose not to,” she added.

This was another example, Thorp said, “where this fable that the vaccine would provide immunity was forced down the throats of pregnant women with the backing of the medical-industrial-complex without a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.”

No vaccine should be given during pregnancy, Thorp said. “But now the pharmaceutical industrial complex is pushing six vaccines including for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, RSV, and COVID-19.”

“From the fetus to the infant at 12 months of life, there are about 42 vaccines administered in 2024, compared with about 11 in 1986,” he added. “This is absurd and an abomination of science.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/whooping-cough-boosters-adults-vaccine-efficacy-kids/

Let’s Talk About the Moon: Was Apollo 11 a Hoax?

Posted on by
2

Dr. Emanuel Garcia

The night that Neil Armstrong was one small step for (a) man from the lunar surface I was taking my first airplane flight to a hockey camp near Toronto. I remember gazing out the window of the jet as a fourteen year old in July 1969 and imagining the Apollo craft on its impossible and miraculous journey to the very moon which I and countless others had marveled at and regarded as forever out of reach.

Yet reach it we did — we being the all-powerful United States of America, then simultaneously wielding its might in the jungles of a faraway country with perverse ferocity and with the sacrifice of American youngsters in the service of the hazy ideal of protection against Communism.

For many years, while cognizant of the endless warpath trodden by the country of my birth AFTER it had emerged as the glowing victor of World War II, bursting with economic and creative energy and bestriding the rest of the globe as the Colossus, I consoled myself and others with that magnificent and scarcely imaginable achievement of lunar landings.

Placing a man on the moon, that pure and nearly snow-white surface as far removed from the heat and grime of the napalmed Vietnamese jungles, somehow unified humanity in praise and deference, and established the United States as the artificer of miracles. In so doing it also lent a burnished sheen of intimidating and awe-inspiring power to an America whose tradition of can-do individualism was seen to have vanquished its socialistic rival, Russia.

The eyes of humankind for as long as it has trodden this precious Earth have looked heavenward and followed the glowing and bright and changeable Moon with a plethora of dreams and wishes and sighs. To have reached the lunar surface, to have made that impossibly giant leap, became the stuff of insurmountable accomplishment. In sum, no matter how degraded or destructive or sinister the Deep State factions of the United States had been with their never-ending wars and atrocities, the Apollo missions were an offsetting balm, a reminder of greatness and goodness and magnificence on which all could agree as the fulfillment of one of the grandest of dreams.

I had heard, throughout the years, of the cavils of small-minded conspiracy theorists who questioned the Apollo landings, but I had dismissed them or, more accurately, simply ignored them. Knowledgeable though I was about the devastating State-sponsored murders of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, and cognizant as I was of the sickening exhibition of destructive deception that was 9/11, Apollo was a glowing ember of hope and beneficence, an emblem of the possibilities of a beneficent collective — the very stuff that dreams are made on, dreams which all of us could share and revel in and be proud about having realized, utterly without qualm.

Nonetheless, for one reason or other, nagged no doubt by an itch fostered by State duplicity, I decided to look into Apollo a bit more closely. I decided, in fact, to do my own bit of sleuthing just to make sure that the stirrings and suspicions about Apollo could be attributed to malaise and malcontents rather than to veracity.

My looking about and digging in resulted in a personal surprise, and a personal awakening. I discovered, in fact, that the case for legitimate human footsteps upon the lunar surface was ridiculously absurd. I discovered that I — and most of the world, I supposed — had accepted a grand illusion as reality when a cool examination of the evidence led to the deflating conclusion that Apollo was a hoax. A big one, a splendid one, an unparalleled one, but a hoax nonetheless.

I wrote my first article about Apollo in 2018, entitled, “How High the Moon”, which appeared on the http://www.aulis.com website. Others followed, including “Moon Landings: Magnificent and Deviously Contrived Propaganda,” and a review of a film by the Italian documentarian Massimo Mazzucco. I urge you to take a look at them.

Determined to lay the matter to rest for myself I even lit upon a small but telling anomaly — the Apollo 11 command module’s extra-vehicular handles. Made of aluminum, these handles should have melted under the intense heat of reentry; but they didn’t. I have published my findings comprehensively here and, in a more accessible fashion, here. These are small potatoes compared to the work of Kaysing, René, Sibrel, Percy, Bennett, Allen, Henderson, McGowan, Wisnewski and many others, whose extensive investigations have revealed and exposed innumerable discrepancies and problems with the official NASA account about virtually every aspect of the Apollo missions. Randy Walsh’s recent books are highly recommended for their overviews.

But allow me, in passing, to direct your attention to this famous video clip of what has become known as the ‘lunar grand prix’:

You be the judge as you watch the robotically immobile driver and listen to the comically insipid commentary.

The single greatest argument against the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972 is the fact that despite the astronomically exponential growth of computational and technological power since then, somehow or other getting ‘back’ to the moon in the 21st century has not yet been achieved.

Interestingly enough, the trailer for a new film about Apollo has just been released:

From what I can tell it brazenly suggests that NASA actually undertook to film a fake lunar landing just in case the ‘real’ one didn’t fly.

I wonder why, just now, in the aftermath of a fake pandemic, this candy-coated message has been released. Is it a clever piece of propaganda designed to forestall the obvious astonishment and questioning of generations born into the internet age when they are asked to accept the clumsy and comical NASA videos of last century? Is it a sophisticated psychological way to resuscitate the halo of the Apollo achievements? What will the impact of encasing a truth within the envelope of a lie amount to, over time?

My point however is that of all the psyops, Apollo stands out supremely. Unlike the assassinations of JFK or RFK, unlike 9/11 or covid, it is not terrifyingly destructive. It is instead positive, meant to induce awe — which creates a different kind of fear among those worshipping at the altar of the miracle — and to bathe us in the aura of supreme human achievement, of conquering the unconquerable and patting ourselves on our backs, we denizens of the little species that could.

It is and has also been a way to cover over the darker and rabidly perverse and destructive machinations of State factions whose goals have been and still are endless war, power and profit — sprinkled with a dash of what I call ‘brinkmanship madness’.

For it is eminently possible that the corrupt Deep State JFK sought to confront, the one that brought us to the lip of nuclear war in the Sixties and is now bringing us all to the edge of a New Tyrannical Order, replete with hot wars and wars irregular and concealed against our very humanity, has a wild and unpredictably calamitous streak.

Those at the helm can be crazy enough to bring us all down in an orgy of annihilation even as they promise themselves visions of transhumanist immortality.

Let’s see.

I thought long and hard about discussing the Moon and the myths of America’s Apollo, because these views might cast aspersion on an already fragile alliance of people protesting against the deceptions of the covid operation. But I think the time is right — maybe Fly Me to the Moon nudged me a little?

If we are going to prevail and really create a better world — as I think we indeed are on another brink of doing — what better way to begin than by discarding all of the grand illusions in favor of humility and truth?

One final note. At the famous press conference of Apollo 11 astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were asked by a reporter if they could see stars from the lunar surface.

The answers are instructive.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/talk-moon-apollo-11-hoax/5855059

 

Here’s Why Israel Will Lose a Shootout with Iran

Posted on by
11

Mike Whitney

Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israeli military sites on April 13-14 signals a tectonic shift in the regional balance of power. While the media remains preoccupied with the number of outdated Iranian drones that were shot down during the onslaught, military analysts are far more focused on the way that Iran’s ballistic missiles cut through Israel’s vaunted air defense systems striking sites at the Nevatim and Negev Air Bases.

What the operation proved is that Israel’s “deterrents supremacy” is largely a fiction based on overly optimistic assumptions about the performance of their air defense capability. When put to the test, these systems failed to stop many of the larger and more destructive ballistic missiles from hitting their targets. This, in turn, revealed that Israel’s most heavily-defended and critically-important military sites remain overly-exposed to enemy attack.

More importantly, any future attack will not be announced days in advance nor will Iran attempt to avoid high-value targets or heavy casualties. Instead, they will use their most lethal and state-of-the-art hypersonic missiles to inflict as much death and destruction on Israel as is required to make sure that the Jewish state is unable to lift a hand against Iran in the future. In short, what Iran’s historic attack on Israel shows is that any future provocation by Israel will be met by an immediate and overwhelming response that will leave Israel battered, bloodied and broken. This is an excerpt from a recent article by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter:

Iran’s purpose in launching the attack was to establish a deterrence posture designed to put Israel and the United States on notice that any attack against Iran, whether on Iranian soil or on the territory of other nations, would trigger a retaliation which would inflict more damage on the attacker than the attacker could hope to inflict on Iran. To achieve this result, Iran had to prove itself capable of overcoming the ballistic missile defense systems of both Israel and the United States which were deployed in and around Israel at the time of the attack. This Iran was able to accomplish, with at least nine missiles striking two Israeli air bases that fell under the protective umbrella of the Israeli-US missile defense shield.

The Iranian deterrence posture has implications that reach far beyond the environs of Israel or the Middle East. By defeating the US-Israeli missile defense shield, Iran exposed the notion of US missile defense supremacy that serves as the heart of US force protection models used when projecting military power on a global scale. The US defensive posture vis-à-vis Russia, China, and North Korea hinges on assumptions made regarding the efficacy of US ballistic missile defense capabilities. By successfully attacking Israeli air bases which had the benefit of the full range of US anti-ballistic missile technology, Iran exposed the vulnerability of the US missile defense shield to modern missile technologies involving maneuverable warheads, decoys, and hypersonic speed. US bases in Europe, the Pacific and the Middle East once thought to be well-protected, have suddenly been revealed to be vulnerable to hostile attack. So, too, are US Navy ships operating at sea. Checkmate, Scott Ritter, Substack

Keep in mind, that the Iranian government has not officially confirmed that it used its most technologically-advanced hypersonic glide vehicles in the assault. Most weapons experts, like Ritter, believe they only used their older, less advanced missiles in order to conceal the dramatic improvements to their stockpile. Even so, Iran was able to put five ballistic missiles on their target at the Nevatim Air Base and another four at the Negev Air Base, arguably two of the most heavily-protected bases in the world today. In short, Iran was able to slip by Israel’s robust radar and air defense systems and deliver a blow at the heart of the Israeli war machine using second class munitions and technology. Imagine the damage they would inflict if they felt forced to use their unstoppable hypersonic missiles. This is why it is unlikely that Netanyahu will order a direct attack on Iranian territory. The consequences for Israel would be nothing short of catastrophic. Here’s more from Ritter:

“My understanding is that Iran used 3 types of ballistic missiles. One ballistic missile uses a warhead that separates and then burst-fires a number of decoys that are specifically designed to attract Iron Dome missiles. …so, Iron Dome will fire 25 interceptors…Meanwhile smaller more maneuverable warheads burst through those interceptors and hit the Israeli air defense systems… and that appears to be the case. So, they are telling the Israelis ‘How we are going to take you out’... The next thing we see, is missiles coming in that the warheads separate from the missile body and then there is a booster engine on the warhead that drives it down into the ground blowing away any ability for radar intercept hitting the target. And what this does is clear the space, clear all the air defense. and the final thing is these heavy warheads that come off the heavy missiles that hit the runways and blew the big craters in them. This was a three-layered ballistic missile attack that was specifically designed by the Iranians to destroy Israeli air defense to clear the way to show the Israelis that we can put the big warheads on the target anywhere in Israel we want to. This was successful, and the beauty of this is, they didn’t use their best missiles…. This was just a single strike-package. …Iran can repeat this process all day long and what they’ve showed Israel is that “This is what we can do.” And I guarantee you that their are intelligence officers like me writing reports right now telling Israel, “Stop all the nonsense. We can’t win this war. It’s over, guys. We have no defense here. If Iran wants to come in, we are powerless. Stop it now.” The Missiles of April, Scott Ritter, You Tube; 6:30 minute mark

Notice the difference between ‘weapons pro’ Ritter’s analysis and the nonsense in the western media. Here’s a short blurb from a piece at the Jerusalem Post which captures the flavor of most of the articles published in the MSM since the attack:

Iran’s weekend drone and missile attack on Israel was an “embarrassing failure,” the US said, stressing that it highlighted the IDF’s defensive prowess as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet weighed reprisal actions.

“I’ve seen reporting that the Iranians meant to fail that this spectacular and embarrassing failure was all by design,” US National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby told reporters in Washington on Monday…

“Let’s be straight, given the scale of this attack, Iran’s intent was clearly to cause significant destruction and casualties,” Kirby said as he spoke of how a coalition of five armies — Israel, the US, Jordan, France, and Great Britain — repelled over 300 missiles and drone targeting the Jewish state. Iran’s attack is an ‘embarrassing failure,’ a success for Israel, says US, Jerusalem Post

If it was Iran’s intention to cause “significant destruction and casualties”, then why didn’t they bomb downtown Tel Aviv or Haifa? Wouldn’t that have made more sense? And why did Iran communicate their plans 72 hours in advance to everyone, including the United States via the Saudis? And, if the attack was such an “embarrassing failure”, then why is Israel still hesitating to strike back?

The fact is, the Israeli war cabinet has already met four times since the incident and has not yet decided how to respond. Why?

Because Iran’s deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri has told Israel in no uncertain terms that if they launch another attack on Iran, they should expect to “get hit harder, faster, and with more immediacy.” So, the flexibility Israel has enjoyed for the last two decades, of bombing and assassinating its neighbors whenever it gets the urge, is over. Just like Israel’s long streak of impunity is over. Tehran has thrown down the gauntlet and let it be known that it if Israel crosses its red lines, there’s going to be a war.

[…]

Via https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/heres-why-israel-will-lose-a-shootout-with-iran/

Do Vaccines Makes Us Healthier?

Posted on by
1
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Do vaccines make us healthier? It’s something every one of us should want to know, no matter where we stand on the vaccine debate. Shockingly, our national health agencies have never tried to find out.
[…}
That’s the question three groundbreaking studies published in 2020 set out to answer. Each team, independently and using three different methods, identified and measured the real risks of vaccines by comparing the overall health of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
[…]
The first study, by scientists Brian Hooker, PhD, and Neil Miller, analyzed health data from three US medical practices. They compared the odds ratios for selected health outcomes in children born between 2005 and 2015.
[…]
For all diagnoses with significant data, they found that children who were not vaccinated in that crucial first year had a much lower rate of illnesses than those who were.
The team discovered that by age five, children who’d been vaccinated in their first 12 months were twice as likely to have developmental delays, nearly three times as likely to have gastrointestinal disorders, 50% more likely to have ear infections, and 273% more likely to have asthma than unvaccinated children in that same age group.
[…]
The second peer-reviewed study by scientist James Lyons Wyler, PhD, and pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, took a different approach to the subject. This study compared the number of office visits in the vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Like the previous study, this one also found that for every track diagnosis, the vaccinated children experienced far more illness and dysfunction than the vaccine-free.
[…]
Ear and eye issues were also far more common in the vaccinated, and anemia-related visits spiked in the vaccinated children at 9 months of age when routine screenings are conducted. Visits for behavioral issues climbed steadily from birth, and ADHD visits revealed dramatic differences between the two groups.
[…]
The third study was a national health survey that focused on the medical diagnoses of never vaccinated people of all ages.
[…]
And just like the previous two studies, the control group survey found that those who live vaccine-free lives were far healthier overall.
[…]
The first overall chart shows that as of 2010, at least 27% of America’s vaccinated children had chronic health conditions.
That’s 10 to 20 million kids and families dealing every day with issues like allergies, asthma, rashes, ADHD, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, or even cancer.
And sadly, the rate of chronic illness today is more than 50% in children. And for adults, it’s even higher.Vaccinated children are over 3.5 times more likely to have at least one chronic illness, and they’re 5.7 times more likely to have multiple chronic illnesses.
National statistics show that vaccinated adults are 9.5 times more likely to have chronic conditions, including asthma and arthritis, plus some of the leading causes of death such as diabetes, heart disease, respiratory illness, and cancer.
These adults are 43 times more likely to have two chronic conditions. And 12% of them have five chronic illnesses. These are the people who we’ve heard about on the news who are at an increased risk of hospitalization and death from infectious diseases like COVID-19.
[…]

RESOURCES Courtesy of Greg Glaser and Dr. Brian Hooker

1.  Unvaccinated Study #1: Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders – https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050312120925344

2.  Unvaccinated Study #2: Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them – https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/59

3.  Unvaccinated Study #3: Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated –https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40

4. Unvaccinated Study #4: Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children – https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

5.  NY Times bestselling book: VAX-UNVAX: Let the Science Speak – https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510766969/vax-unvax/

6.  Court documents: Expert reports –https://vaxcheckers.org/expert-reports/

7.  CDC on chronic illness: The majority of vaccinated Americans suffer chronic illness – https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/index.htm

8.  Article: Effort to Kill New Vaccine Studies Fails – American College for Advancement of Medicine (ACAM) on the false claim that the Mawson study had been retracted:  https://www.acam.org/news/347977/Effort-to-Kill-New-Vaccine-Studies-Fails.htm

9.  US Census Bureau’s National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) questionnaires ( ~170 questions yet silent about vaccination status):

https://www.childhealthdata.org/learn-about-the-nsch/survey-instruments

10.  Vaccines classified as “unavoidably unsafe” by law – CFR, Comment k “Unavoidably unsafe products” are discussed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Restatement of Torts (Second) 402A (k) § 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer, Comment k. See e.g.,“Unavoidably Unsafe Products: Clarifying the Meaning and Policy Behind Comment K”  – https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=wlulr

11.  The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) (shields vaccine makers from legal liability and shifts burden of compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths onto taxpayers) – https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

12.  2011 Supreme Court (Bruesewitz): Court ruling that vaccine makers cannot be sued for design defects that harm or kill because the 1986 law acknowledged that vaccines cannot be made safe. (See NCVIA and CFR/Comment K reference)

13.  Informed Consent Defense: Unvaccinated Control Group litigation exhibits, testimonies, evidence –

14. NICE Act: Bill in Congress to end vaccine mandates and encourage control group science –

15. Video voiceover: Erik Nicolaisen

Via https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/do-vaccines-make-us-healthier

Iran’s air defenses down drones over Isfahan

Posted on by
2

El Mayadeen

Iranian sources refuted claims that an Israeli aggression was launched on Iran on Friday.

No external aggression on Iran occurred after Friday midnight, Iranian sources informed on the matter told Al Mayadeen.

Following circulating news on Western-based media outlets, regarding a supposed Israeli attack on Iran, sources told Al Mayadeen that such an event did not occur. Instead, Iranian air defenses repelled a relatively small drone attack in Tabriz and Isfahan, which were likely launched domestically.

What is being circulated about an Israeli attack on Iran are lies and are part of a misinformation war, according to our sources.

 

Iranian sources also added that complicit United States media outlets are waging a proxy war of disinformation on behalf of the Israeli occupation.

This comes after Iran’s Space Agency confirmed that several drones, of unspecified origin, were downed over Iranian airspace. The agency said that no missile attack on Iran occurred on Friday.

The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) said that short-range and medium-range Iranian air defense batteries repelled the attack.

Earlier, Iran’s Mehr News Agency, citing the Director General of the Iran Airports and Air Navigation Company, said that all air traffic was suspended in Isfahan, Shiraz, and Tehran. Iranian media outlets reported that air defense systems were activated in Isfahan, as explosions of an unknown cause were heard.

Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent, citing the spokesperson of the Iranian Space Agency, said that air defense batteries responded to three targets over Isfahan. He added that reports indicate that air defenses responded to threats in Qahjavarestan, northeast of Isfahan, as no aerial objects hit ground targets.

Our correspondent stressed that all of the explosions heard on Friday were a result of air defense interceptions.

The Islamic Republic News Agency reports that air defenses were activated in Tabriz, in northern Iran, resulting in a series of explosions. The agency added that no aerial objects hit ground targets in Tabriz and that all loud sounds were a result of interceptors exploding over Tabriz’s sky.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-s-air-defenses-down-drones-over-isfahan–tabriz

Iran warns Israel it knows where its nukes are hidden

Posted on by
7
Iran warns Israel it knows where its nukes are hidden
FILE PHOTO: An Iranian “hypersonic” ballistic missile unveiled in June, 2023. ©  Sepah News / Handout via Anadolu Agency / Getty Images
RT
An attack on Tehran’s facilities will trigger tit-for-tat retaliation, the IRGC officer in charge of their safety has said

A senior officer of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has warned that Tehran is capable of striking Israeli nuclear facilities if its own are hit, according to local media.

Tensions have escalated in the Middle East this month following an alleged Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1, in which seven IRGC officers were killed. Tehran retaliated last weekend with a massive barrage of drones and missiles, most of which were reportedly downed by the Jewish state and its Western backers.

The Israeli nuclear compounds “are identified, and the necessary information about all the targets is at our disposal to respond,” IRGC Brigadier General Ahmad Haghtalab, claimed, as quoted by Tasnim, a semi-official news agency associated with the regiment. “We have a hand on the trigger to launch powerful missiles and destroy those targets.”

Tehran has said it considers the incident resolved, but Israel has vowed to strike back without revealing how and when. Reportedly, West Jerusalem is considering further military action, possibly targeting the Iranian nuclear industry. IRGC Brigadier General Ahmad Haghtalab, the officer responsible for safeguarding the Iranian sites, said the Israeli nuclear industry could be hit in retaliation.

The Israeli nuclear industry has a public civilian component as well as a purported military component, the existence of which it neither confirms nor denies. West Jerusalem has an estimated 80 nuclear weapons at its disposal, including 30 gravity bombs and 50 warheads for medium-range ballistic missiles, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading international security watchdog. Haghtalab didn’t specify which sites Iran had considered for its hypothetical operation.

Israel has been accusing Iran of secretly developing nuclear capabilities of its own for decades. Gilad Erdan, its representative at the UN, claimed last Sunday that Tehran was mere weeks away from building a nuclear weapon, as he urged members of the UN Security Council to consider what would have happened if Iran “could have launched a nuclear bomb” when it attacked his country. These claims were later dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Iranian leadership has stated that it considers all weapons of mass destruction incompatible with Islam. Haghtalab, however, assessed that it would be “conceivable” for Tehran to reconsider its “nuclear doctrine and politics,” if Israel keeps threatening its nuclear facilities.

Nuclear sites are normally considered off limits for military action, the general said, but Israel’s attack on the consulate, an internationally-protected diplomatic mission, was proof that it does not care about playing by the rules.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/596196-iran-israel-nuclear-facilities/

Canada: Zionist and Nazi Propaganda to Be Taught as ‘History’ in Ontario Schools

Posted on by
4

Historical revisionism is the point of order for a declining Canadian political elite, which views with terror the rise of anti-colonial thinking in the population and the strengthening of a socialist-multipolar oriented state alliance crippling NATO’s colonial capabilities. No comparison is more revealing than the Ontario government’s attitude towards education around Palestine and towards the historical Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (now Ukraine).

Aidan Jonah

The Ontario government openly condemned the inclusion of a Nakba Remembrance Day in the Peel District School Board’s calendar. Ontario’s education minister, Stephen Lecce, demanded that the PDSB remove it, under the guise of wanting no politics in the classroom. But last fall, the same education minister spoke proudly about imposing mandatory ‘Holodomor education’ on Grade 10 students, based on a Nazi myth that baselessly claims that the USSR starved Ukrainians for opposing agricultural collectivization. As part of this ‘education’, the Ontario government gave $400,000 CAD to support the ‘Holodomor’ bus tour, run by an organization which aided a Ukrainian Nazi’s army medical section and whose COO formerly trained a Nazi Ukrainian battalion, the Azov Battalion.

Politics in the classroom are fine when its about spreading Nazi propaganda

Lecce’s professed attitude towards politics in the classroom, when Palestine is on the menu, is such:

“Over the past months, I made my expectations clear to all school boards that there is no room for politics or the influence of personal opinions in Ontario classrooms. At a time when so many young Canadians are divided, it is critical that schools bring people together.”

But when it comes to imposing Nazi propaganda – ‘Holodomor’ education – on young students, Lecce’s attitude towards politics in the classroom is much different, seeing it as part of:

“Ensuring the next generation embraces democracy & freedom, & never sits on the sidelines in the face of evil.”

The reason for this is clear. Young people grappling with the Western colonialism against Palestine – with Zionists as the colonial enforcers given leeway to set up a colonial outpost in the Middle East amid a wave of anti-colonial national liberation efforts – produces very uncomfortable questions about the nature of Canadian foreign policy in constantly backing Zionism from even before Israel came to exist, Canadian imperialism more broadly, and Canada as a colonial state itself. Meanwhile, the ‘Holodomor’ propaganda serves to demonize a historical socialist anti-colonial nation, the Soviet Union (USSR), which led the way in defeating the fascist Axis powers during WWII. Lecce and Canada’s political elite seeks to ideologically charge young people for capitalism and against socialism.

The concern about politics in the classroom only comes because acknowledging colonialism against Palestine is based in reality and a threat to Canadian imperialism. It is not a genuine concern for Lecce.

Nakba reality versus the ‘Holodomor’ lie

The Nakba was a colonial crime rooted in British imperialism. Back in 1917, Lord Balfour, a key figure in British politics, gave his support to Zionist ambitions to establish a colonial country from the territory of then British Palestine. Yves Engler explained that after WWII, Canada worked to impose a partition plan that gave a massively oversized area of British Palestine to Zionists based on population, under the false idea that Arabs and Jews couldn’t live together in peace. Canada’s former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, was then a diplomat, where he helped impose this partition plan at the UN without consultation of the Palestinians.  As Engler noted, Pearson said Israel was “the land of my Sunday School lessons” where he learned “the Jews belonged in Palestine.”

Canada’s support for colonial Israel was based on Western political interests, explains Engler:

“Support for Israel has been based on the idea that it is a valuable Western military outpost. Of central importance to Canadian support for the 1947 partition plan was the belief that a Middle Eastern Jewish state would serve Western interests. An internal report circulated at External Affairs during the UN negotiations explained: ‘The plan of partition gives to the western powers the opportunity to establish an independent, progressive Jewish state in the Eastern Mediterranean with close economic and cultural ties with the West generally and in particular with the United States.’”

In 1948, in violation of an already biased partition plan in its favour, with Arab countries militarily opposing the imposition of Israel into the Middle East, Zionist militias forcibly expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, destroying villages and committing numerous massacres. The first Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, said in 1948:

“We must do everything to insure they [the Palestinians] never do return… The old will die and the young will forget.”

Fascist Israel, a true Nazi successor to the just fallen Nazi German menace, rose firmly into existence as a state through the Nakba. Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis before WWII, and helped break an attempted economic boycott of Nazi Germany via the Ha’avara Agreement in 1933, outright ensuring Nazi Germany wouldn’t face an international economic boycott. Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU) Co-President, Bruce Katz, further noted that “Yitzhak Shamir who would later become Prime Minster of Israel had been part of a proposal made on the part of the Stern Gang in 1941 to ally themselves with Nazi Germany as a means of driving the British out of Palestine.”

In 1948, with the Nakba, Zionists who then founded Israel took the Nazi torch from Nazi Germany, which they’d willingly assisted in a time of trouble.

Canada never enforced its Foreign Enlistment Act against Canadians who were part of committing the Nakba. No sanctions ever came against Israel for the Nakba.

Meanwhile, Zionists, with anti-colonial sentiment popular, have tried to brand themselves as ‘de-colonial’, meaning that the colonial crimes that were necessary to create their state are especially important to cover up. This explains why the Ontario government, congruent with past Canadian elite sympathies, being strongly Zionist, condemns a day acknowledging the Nakba. This cover up would be damaged if the BC Education Ministry integrated learning about the Nakba into the elementary and secondary school curriculum, as demanded by the BC Federation of Teachers – so it’s no surprise that Zionists are also opposing this demand. Education recognizing the Nakba, given Israel’s Nazi nature, is anti-Nazi education, and fighting for it should be applauded.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/04/19/canada-zionist-and-nazi-propaganda-to-be-taught-as-history-in-ontario-schools/

Precision Over Power: How Iran’s ‘Obsolete’ Missiles Penetrated Israel’s Air Defenses

Posted on by
10
(Photo Credit: The Cradle)

Cradle Contributor

Iran’s 13 April retaliatory missile strike on Israel, dubbed Operation True Promise, managed to overcome the occupation state’s integrated air defense systems and external foreign support.

The strike, intended to deter future actions by Israel against Iranian personnel and facilities, was notably executed to avoid casualties and serious damage. The operation was especially bold as it targeted Israel, an undeclared nuclear power.

Open-source intelligence from videos and photographs identified multiple warheads striking Ramon airbase in the Negev, not Nevatim, as previously reported, although the occupation army confirmed strikes on Nevatim and released images showing minor damage. This suggests a systematic failure of Israel’s lauded air defenses against those five missiles that hit their target, one after the other.

A look at the missiles used

As Brigadier-General Ali Hajizadeh, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force’s commander, later stated:

We attacked Israel using obsolete weapons and minimal means. At this stage, we did not use Khorramshahr, Sejjil, Shahid Haj Qassem, Kheibar Shekan[-2], and Hypersonic-2 missiles.

So what missiles did Iran deploy from its significant domestically-produced arsenal, and why?

Ghadr: Despite being 20 years old, this missile proved effective by deploying decoy warheads to exhaust Israel’s Arrow-2 intercept capabilities. While traversing in space, the Ghadr releases about 10 decoy warheads to lure Arrow-2 to launch 10 interceptors each at all 10 Iranian decoys – draining the enemy’s munitions stock.

The images of Israeli interceptors responding to a range of “lights in the skies” were, in fact, often just firing at decoys. The actual Iranian warheads, if not differentiated by Arrow-2’s systems and destroyed by its interceptors, reached their targets.

The missile is still relevant in Iran’s arsenal as it can create additional targets for the enemy’s missile defenses and suppress the operation of large-area assets, such as airbases.

Dezful: A compact, cost-effective missile with a 600 to 700-kilogram payload, apparently used specifically to strike at an Israeli intelligence base in the occupied northern Golan, demonstrating its strategic deployment within its range limits.

This is a low-cost, single-stage precision missile weighing just about 6 tons, yet able to reach Israel – a revolutionary advancement for Iran when Dezful entered service five years ago – but not Nevatim, because its range is about 1,000 kilometers.

Emad: Approximately a decade old, this was used to test Iran’s countermeasures against newer air defense systems like Israel’s Arrow-3 and the American SM-3. It releases inflatable decoys in space to evade interception before re-entry.

Kheibar-Shekan-1: (early model, not the Kheibar-Shekan-2): IRGC’s answer to Israel’s Arrow-3. Kheibar-Shekan-1 entered service with IRGC Aerospace Force in 2022. It counters Arrow-3 by flying on a “depressed trajectory.”

During the terminal phase of its flight, the Kheibar-Shekan-1 performs aerodynamic maneuvers designed to evade interception from multiple defense systems, including Arrow, Patriot, and David’s Sling.

These maneuvers, likened to a boxer dodging punches, complicate the interception process by forcing defense systems to delay their responses or deploy multiple interceptors, reducing their overall effectiveness.

The Kheibar-Shekan-1 forces missile defenses to launch in the “launch-on-remote” mode, meaning several interceptors are required against a single missile. The successful strikes attributed to this missile, as indicated by Israel – with nine confirmed hits – underline its effectiveness and represent a significant evolution in missile technology despite being a generation behind the most recent IRGC models.

Kheibar-Shekan-1’s maneuverability makes it the most likely candidate to have achieved the successful strikes captured by video imagery.

Iranian media has since quoted Hajizadeh saying, “At this stage, we did not use the Khorramshahr, Sejjil, Shahid Haj Qassem, Kheibar-Shekan[-2], and Hypersonic-2 missiles,” which are all part of Iran’s advanced missile arsenal. That does not necessarily preclude Iran’s use of the older Kheibar-Shekan-1 missile, which still appears to be the most likely Iranian missile used to achieve direct hits successively.

‘Weaker than a spider’s web’ 

Despite Israel’s integrated air defense system, which is bolstered by data from a US monitoring station in the Negev Desert and 36-hour prior notification of the strike from Tehran, multiple Iranian missiles successfully struck their targets.

The US station monitors Iranian missile launches, with the collected data intended to enhance Israel’s defensive response. But despite the support of a multi-nation coalition, which included Jordan defending its airspace and Saudi Arabia and the UAE providing intelligence, Israel’s defenses were breached.

While Israel engaged in GPS jamming before the Iranian attack, its efforts proved futile. Such “electronic warfare” measures cannot counter Iran’s ballistic missiles. Although older drone models are susceptible to this, Iran’s Shahed-136 drone models have been “hardened” against GPS jamming.

This is likely based on Russian experiences in the Ukrainian military theater that were shared with the IRGC Aerospace Force. IRGC’s missiles use “inertial guidance systems,” which rely on built-in guidance systems like gyroscopes and computers.

An inertial guidance system receives input at and just after launch. At this point, it ceases to receive data from the IRGC launch base and relies solely on its onboard systems. That the missiles traveled 1,000 to 1,200 kilometers and struck targets with pinpoint accuracy guided solely by onboard systems is a superlative achievement by Iran.

Israel’s defense credibility at stake 

Israel and its allies claim hundreds of missiles and drones were launched by Iran. However, estimates favorable to the Iranian side suggest only 50 to 60 missiles were launched, with 9 to 15 striking their designated targets.

The Israeli military’s propagandist claim of a 99 percent interception rate would fall to about 50 or 60 percent if the above estimate is accurate. The Israeli claim on the number of missiles may be inflated if they are counting the decoys deployed by Ghadr missiles. If so, the picture would look much grimmer for Israel’s missile defense performance.

Hence, to save face and contain escalation, a politically driven inflation of overall launches is evident. This is in line with US interests, which seek to prevent escalation by Israel. Whether Washington’s aim of containing the crisis would allow it to publish the true number is unclear, particularly if the Iranian salvo was small. If it were proven that a relatively small Iranian salvo managed to defeat a complex missile defense system, Israel would lose its aura of invincibility.

Sending a clear message 

The types and quantities of missiles Iran chose to use in this strike are not just military tactics but also political messages intended to demonstrate capabilities and expose vulnerabilities in Israel’s air defense systems.

What is evident, though, is that once multiple Iranian warheads penetrate Israel’s air defense systems and strike critical targets, an equation-changing political-military event has occurred. This is to say, Iran made a powerful statement by breaking through Israel’s air defenses and doing so with older ballistic missiles.

In response to threats from Israel about targeting Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, the resilience of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure poses a significant challenge to the occupation state’s conventional capabilities.

Despite the drawbacks, the potential political gains from such an attack might be considered favorable by embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing, nationalist government.

In contrast, Iran’s response to any Israeli attack on nuclear facilities like Natanz or Fordow would likely be intense, drawing on the full capabilities of the IRGC Aerospace Force. It would also – to the horror of Tel Aviv and Washington – potentially lead to a revision of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear doctrine – as was suggested on 18 April by Iran’s Nuclear Centers Protection and Security Corps, Brigadier General Ahmed Haq Talab.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/precision-over-power-how-irans-obsolete-missiles-penetrated-israels-air-defenses