By Dr Meryl Nass

The parallel lines are the result of pulsed electromagnetic fields applied to charged particles released as part of “solar radiation management”

About one month ago, when the Mag 7 stocks were screaming higher every day without a care in the world, and before the masses had even considered who would fund the trillions in future capex needs once the organic cash flow topped out – something we had just discussed in “AI Is Now A Debt Bubble Too, Quietly Surpassing All Banks To Become The Largest Sector In The Market” in which we explained why attention would very soon turn to AI companies issuing gargantuan amounts of debt (something we first discussed in July, long before anyone was considering this issue) as has now become the case – we decided to move even further beyond the curve and said that not even the debt would be the gating factor for the AI revolution-cum-arms race, but rather access to energy. That’s because at some point – somewhere around the time companies realized they would no longer be able to rely on either equity or debt capital markets – the US government itself, if it wanted to win the AI war with China where the state directly subsidizes local data centers and AI figures, would have to step in and provide the required capital.

Specifically, we said that “The money is not the problem: AI is the new global arms race, and capex will eventually be funded by governments (US and China). If you want to know why gold/silver/bitcoin is soaring, it’s the “debasement” to fund the AI arms race.”

Even Elon Musk decided to respond to that particular observation.

And since it had become the norm, we thought it would take the market the usual 6-9 months to catch up to what we – and our readers – were already considering, especially since there still was ample “dry powder” capital among the hyperscalers to delay the rather unpleasant conversation of who would fund what once the money was gone, or so we thought.

Because this time it took less than a month.

What happened, as the market learned the hard way this week, is that OpenAI’s CFO Sarah Friar, with all the finesse of a bull in a China data center, slammed the growing market skepticism that AI would cure cancer, slice bread and lead to universal utopia, and said “I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individuals.” 

Her comments came in response to a podcast in which her boss Sam Altman participated, and where he was grotesquely – in a Jeff Skilling sort of way – defensive when billionaire Brad Gerstner asked how a company with $13BN in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “If you want to sell your shares, I’ll find you a buyer.” 

Gerstner did not want to sell his shares – at least not yet – but the fact that Altman did not have a clear answer (that would have to come several days later in an Bill Ackman-size tweet), and instead responded by attacking what would be considered a very rational question, while refusing or being unable to give a clear answer.

However, what Friar did say – and what promptly spooked the market on Wednesday – is a mangled explanation of where the $1+ trillion in required funding would come from, saying OpenAI is “looking for an ecosystem of banks [and] private equity” to support its ambitious plans. But what triggered the selling is when she explicitly said that the US government would have to “backstop the guarantee that allows the financing to happen.” 

In other words, when all the other sources of funds dried up – clearly a scenario the company is considering judging by her response – the company would have to come to the US taxpayer.

She further explained that “Federal loan guarantees would really drop the cost of the financing,” enabling OpenAI and its investors to borrow more money at lower rates to meet the company’s ambitious targets. Right… because there is nothing like a company with $14BN in revenue, $1 trillion in “valuation” and $1.4 trillion in commitments, than loading up to the gills with government-backstopped debt. See, if only Enron and Lehman could do the same, both would still be around…

Her comments from Wednesday afternoon immediately spooked the market and NVDA shares suffered their biggest weekly drop since April.

And the reason for the drop is precisely the fact that OpenAI was clearly considering what it would do when the money to fund the trillions in spending – first cash from operations, then debt, then equity – and circular deals dried up, the capital that had lifted NVDA to a $5 trillion market cap and OpenAI reportedly worth around $1 trillion ahead of its looming IPO (which will come just as the AI bubble truly peaks).

The fact that US taxpayers were basically the source of that money, is a little truth the market wasn’t read to hear just yet…. a truth which we laid out clearly one month ago.

The reaction – both in the market and within the heretofore complacent narrative surrounding the AI bubble – set off fire alarms, and prompted Sam Altman to publish his longest yet post (clocking in at almost 1100 words), in which he meant to “clarify a few thing”, namely that Friar had “misspoken” and that the ChatGPT maker was not seeking a bailout for its infrastructure commitments, and contrary to what his CFO mentioned, he “does not have or want government guarantees.” 

Only, he does… but don’t call it a guarantee, or bailout.

You see, Friar’s comment was a carefully planted trial balloon, one meant to not only gauge the market’s reaction to what is obviously coming, but also to plant the seed of expectation that one day, Sam Altman would crawl to the White House, tell Trump that OpenAI is now too big to fail as it would take down not only the market but about 20% of GDP growth (which is roughly what datacenter construction accounts for these days), and demand a bailout, only of course it wouldn’t be called that.

Things got worse when Trump’s tech/AI advisor David Sacks said “There Will Be No Federal Bailout For AI… If One Fails, Others Will Take Its Place” refusing to let what had by now become the biggest and most uncomfortable market narrative (i.e., why does the company at the forefront of the AI revolution need government guarantees, or a bailout), leave the front page. And then it got even worse, when it emerged that Sam Altman was – once again (just ask Elon Musk) – lying, after it was revealed that on Oct 27, OpenAI’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, had submitted a document in which they advocated for including datacenter spend within the “American manufacturing” umbrella.

As Bloomberg explained, contrary to Sam Altman’s representation that he wants nothing to do with the government, OpenAI had in fact asked the Trump administration to revamp a Chips Act tax credit to help lower the cost of artificial intelligence infrastructure, as the startup was exploring additional ways the US government can support an industrywide data center build-out for AI.

In the letter, Lehane suggests the administration work with Congress to expand a 35% chips-focused tax credit to AI data centers, AI server producers and electrical grid components, such as transformers and the specialized steel used to produce them.

Broadening the tax credit will “lower the effective cost of capital, de-risk early investment and unlock private capital to help alleviate bottlenecks and accelerate the AI build in the US,” Lehane said in the letter.

Caught up on this latest web of circular lies (what is it about OpenAI and circles), which is suddenly existential to the viability of the circle-jerk complex^TM Altman had to publish yet another “explainer” today to discuss just how he sees his relationship with the government, now that this very touchy topic was all anyone could talk about… not to mention was hammering NVDA stock which has long been the barometer of sentiment toward the AI bubble.

In its letter, OpenAI advocated for the government to issue grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees to “manufacturers” in the AI industry broadly, without specifying exactly which kinds of companies. It is clear that OpenAI would be one of the beneficiaries since it is at the center of the entire AI circle-jerk complex^TM.

Altman said an effort to revitalize the US chip industry “across the entire stack — fabs, turbines, transformers, steel, and much more — will help everyone in our industry, and other industries (including us).”

“To the degree the government wants to do something to help ensure a domestic supply chain, great.” Altman wrote. “But that’s super different than loan guarantees to OpenAI, and we hope that’s clear.”

Yes, it’s “super different”, because what Sam is asking for is subsidies, which is precisely what China is bestowing upon its companies. The only difference is that in China all companies are effectively state owned. Meanwhile OpenAI hopes to one day become Zorg Industries and control everyone, including nation states.

And here we go back to square one – namely what we said a month ago is the emerging AI arms race between the US and China, one which OpenAI quietly hoped to piggy back on and supercharge its returns and equity value. OpenAI said the type of financial support it is asking from the government, would help counter China in instances where it is “distorting the market,” such as copper, aluminum and electrical steel. Direct funding would also help shorten lead times for critical grid components such as transformers.

In a separate September white paper on infrastructure policy, OpenAI actually came much closer to admitting it does in fact want explicit government guarantees, in that it supports loan guarantees to allow AI companies to “confidently purchase US-made chips at scale.” The move would shore up demand for US semiconductor facilities while reducing costs for AI companies purchasing chips, the white paper said.

Which it not to say OpenAI hasn’t done its homework: the US has a prototype for loans and loan guarantees for strategic industries, as it offered these incentives to the semiconductor industry as part of the Chips Act. As of the end of January this year, only $5.5 billion of up to $75 billion were awarded, per a Commerce Department report.

OpenAI’s requested tax credit aligns with the Trump administration’s consistent messaging about winning the AI race and its high-level determination to remake the Chips Act of 2022. Earlier this year, it converted a Chips Act grant in Intel Corp. into an equity stake, marking a significant departure from the original plan.

But here’s the thing: sure, go ahead and demand – sorry, politely ask for – government guarantees, backstops, or bailouts – whatever you want to call it – but be prepared to compensate the government by handing over a sizable chunk of equity so that everyone can participate in the upside, and not just be stuck with the soaring electricity and water bills which are needed to fund the explosion of data centers across the nation.

It happened with Intel, which gave up a major equity check to US taxpayers in return for US government support, it happened to rare earth minerals company MP Materials, and all other companies the US has directly invested in as part of Trump’s new industrial policy. To be sure, all those companies which the Chinese government is directly subsidizing, none of them are truly private enterprises! This may come as a shock to Sam, but China is a communist nation, which explains the far greater generosity to engage in collective investment on behalf of the state.

Which is why, in our response to Sam, we said “It’s not a loan guarantee. It’s just the government – ie taxpayers – onboarding the risk for your expansion and growth of your equity value.”

Which then became a question: “What do taxpayers get in return: Intel gave them an equity stake. Will OpenAI do the same? Or is it just higher electricity prices”

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sam-altman-denies-openai-needs-government-bailout-he-just-wants-massive-government

Sayer Ji

Nov 01, 2025

How new documents link U.S. intelligence, Ralph Baric, and gain-of-function research — echoing Tulsi Gabbard’s own warnings about the Deep State.

Executive Summary

• Sen. Rand Paul has released a letter revealing that U.S. intelligence agencies contacted coronavirus researcher Dr. Ralph Baric as early as 2015 — five years before the pandemic.¹
• The documents show ODNI and CIA coordination with Baric on “coronavirus evolution and possible human adaptation” and later classified briefings on lab-leak scenarios.
• Dr. Baric’s collaborations with Wuhan’s Dr. Zhengli Shi and EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak appear repeatedly across the correspondence now sought by Paul’s Senate committee.
• Tulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, foreshadowed this in her May 2025 interview with Megyn Kelly, promising to expose intelligence secrecy and gain-of-function complicity — a pledge now intersecting with Paul’s probe.

Rand Paul’s New Revelation

On October 30 2025, Senator Rand Paul sent a formal letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbardafter uncovering records showing U.S. intel contact with Dr. Ralph Baric dating back to 2015.

“In a September 2015 email, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA contacted Dr. Ralph Baric to discuss a ‘possible project’ on coronavirus evolution and possible natural human adaptation.” — Letter from Sen. Rand Paul to DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Oct 30 2025.

Less than two months after those emails, Baric and Wuhan’s Dr. Zhengli Shi co-authored the Nature Medicine paper A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence — funded through USAID’s PREDICT and NIH grants widely described as gain-of-function research.

Paul’s letter further documents that:

• 2018 – Baric and Shi appeared again as collaborators on EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal to DARPA, which proposed inserting a furin cleavage site — the very motif later found in SARS-CoV-2.
• Jan 2020 – Baric briefed ODNI’s Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG), presenting slides titled “Origins,” in which he raised the possibility of an accidental lab release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Paul is now demanding all correspondence since 2012 among intelligence and health-agency officials — Baric, Daszak, Fauci, Collins, Farrar, Lipkin, and others — encompassing every mention of “COVID-19 origins,” “gain-of-function (GOF),” and “dual-use research (DURC).”

His investigation points to a continuum of cooperation between intelligence services and a select circle of researchers whose work shaped the pandemic era. Read the official announcement on the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs website here.

A Parallel Voice: Tulsi Gabbard Speaks Out

Just months before receiving Paul’s letter, Tulsi Gabbard had already framed the issue in strikingly similar terms.

In a May 2025 conversation with Megyn Kelly, she spoke as Director of National Intelligence about her internal fight against secrecy, the “deep rot in the intelligence community,” and the need to declassify records surrounding gain-of-function research and COVID’s origins.

“The American people deserve to know who knew what — and when — about these experiments. Transparency isn’t a threat to national security; secrecy is.” — Tulsi Gabbard, The Megyn Kelly Show, May 1 2025³

She also confirmed her collaboration with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to track government grants and expose whether Dr. Anthony Fauci had misled Congress regarding risky viral-engineering projects.

n light of Paul’s new disclosures, Gabbard’s earlier comments now read less like rhetoric and more like an open-source roadmap for what the Senate is finally uncovering.

Threads Converging

Both Paul and Gabbard are describing the same architecture of concealment:

• Scientific Link Baric, Shi, Daszak coordinate U.S.–China coronavirus work. BSEG briefings discuss possible lab leak. Paul’s committee demands ODNI/CIA emails
• Institutional Link CIA & ODNI request Baric’s expertise. NIH & USAID funding lines. Homeland Security & ODNI review
• Narrative Link “Natural spillover” frame dominates. Lab-leak dismissed as conspiracy. Lab-leak returns as classified subject

The key transformation is that what was once branded misinformation is now the subject of an official Senate inquiry directed at the intelligence community itself.

[…]

Via https://sayerji.substack.com/p/rand-pauls-letter-to-gabbard-re-opens

Episode 24  Why New Guinea Has So Many Languages

Dr John McWhorter (2019)

Film Review

Humans first arrived in New Guinea 70,000 years ago. The island is extremely mountainous with lots of swamps and little island. This means that the societies that developed tended to be cut off from one another.

The eastern half of New Guinea is an Indonesia colony. The western half, known as Papua New Guinea features 750 different languages. Each is spoken by less than a few thousand people and half belong to the Trans New Guinean family. The rest either belong to a half dozen other language families or are totally unrelated isolates. Trans New Guinean languages are also spoken in the Solomon Islands (in the South Pacific) and (like Austronesian languages – see What South Pacific Languages Reveal About the Evolution of Language) have the same word for he and she, five vowel sounds and a small number of consonants.

Because none of the Papuan languages are written, they tend to be more elaborate and differentiated than modern languages.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/6120000/6120048

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

October 29, 2025

A lawsuit demanding the retraction of a decades-old peer-reviewed article that claimed the antidepressant paroxetine, sold as Paxil, is safe and effective has put the issue of fraud in scientific and medical journals back in the spotlight, Paul D. Thacker wrote today in The Disinformation Chronicle.

The lawsuit, filed last month against the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and its publisher, Elsevier, demands the retraction of a 2001 article in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP).

The article was based on Study 329, which the suit claims distorted data to claim Paxil was effective.

The complaint alleges that JAACAP editors and Elsevier refused to retract the article “in an apparent attempt to shield at least five of the … authors who are prominent members of the AACAP from possible ramifications of retraction.”

Study 329 was ghostwritten by Paxil manufacturer GSK — which Thacker discussed in a 2011 report he republished today.

Several of the journal article’s co-authors worked for GSK or went on to hold key positions within the AACAP.

According to Thacker, one of the co-authors, Stan Kutcher, is now a member of the Canadian Senate and co-founded “Science Up First,” an initiative that purportedly targets scientific “misinformation.”

During a roundtable discussion on the weaponization of science that the MAHA Institute organized last week, Thacker cited Study 329 as an example of fraud in scientific and medical publishing.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, spoke at the roundtable. He said the discussion, in which “panelists described horror stories of their own scientific research under attack through targeted retractions of papers, denial of research funding, and disciplinary actions,” was “stunning.” He added:

“There is a huge cost in falling out of line with established institutions in science and medicine, whether corporate, university or private organizations. And these highly credentialed panelists paid a huge cost for ‘doing the right thing’ in exposing malfeasance and bad science.”

Research scientist and author James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., also participated in the roundtable. He said it “explored how science-like activities have been systematically re-engineered to serve political and corporate interests rather than truth.” He said:

“Study 329 exemplifies the collapse of accountability that follows when industry, regulators and journals form a closed feedback loop of self-validation. What’s marketed as ‘misinformation control’ today is often a continuation of that same pattern — protecting narratives, not people.”

‘One of the best documented case studies of corruption in modern biomedicine’

Study 329, completed in 1998 and funded by GSK, revealed serious safety risks — including suicidal behavior — associated with Paxil. Later studies confirmed those risks.

However, the study showed a few minor positive results that suggested possible efficacy, as it met 15% of the outcomes the researchers had initially said would prove Paxil’s effectiveness.

While GSK officials privately conceded these results were not sufficient to show efficacy, they decided to publish selective data from the study in a prestigious medical journal to claim the drug worked.

This led to the 2001 JAACAP article, which became known as the “Keller article,” after lead author Dr. Martin Keller, then chair of psychiatry at Brown University. The article reported only partial results from Study 329.

Peer reviewers raised concerns about the study’s data, but JAACAP has refuted repeated calls to retract the article.

Writing today on her blog, journalist Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., who also spoke at the MAHA roundtable, said Study 329 is “one of the most infamous cases of scientific fraud in modern psychiatry.” She wrote:

“For years, the fraud stood unchallenged. Regulators issued warnings but never forced a correction. The journal refused to retract. The paper remained in circulation — cited hundreds of times, shaping prescribing habits, and legitimising a lie that cost young lives.”

Thacker has been investigating and writing about Study 329 for almost 20 years, as it stands out as one of the “best documented case studies of corruption in modern biomedicine.” He said the study remains relevant because it highlights and underlines how “immoral academics partner with Big Pharma to make money.”

In his 2011 report, Thacker wrote that GSK “used the study as a tool to market Paxil for use on children — until both the FDA and its British counterpart warned doctors to stop prescribing Paxil to children because it could cause them to commit suicide.”

At the time, Kutcher was a candidate for the Canadian parliament, but was not elected. During his campaign, Kutcher threatened a small Canadian newspaper, The Coast, with legal action, demanding the retraction of a story that had investigated Study 329. The Coast retracted the story and issued an apology.

“Study 329 is a shameful example of scientific misconduct that led to a horrible societal catastrophe,” Hooker said.

Study 329 didn’t just distort data, it “normalized fraud as business practice” and “marketed a dangerous drug to children under a false banner of safety and efficacy,” Lyons-Weiler said.

‘Malpractice disguised as scholarship’

GSK didn’t just fund Study 329. It hired a private public relations firm, Scientific Therapeutics Information Inc., to ghostwrite the JAACAP article.

An employee drafted it and sent it to Keller, who was selected to be the lead author and finish the publication process. The firm’s role was not mentioned in the final draft of the paper.

Writing in 2011, Thacker said corporate-funded ghostwriting “involves a pharmaceutical company that hires a PR firm to write medical studies.” The firm then presents the manuscript to academic physicians, who agree to sign on as co-authors, sometimes making only “minor changes” to the article.

“The professors get credit for a publication and the pharma company gets a study that is ‘authored’ by physicians who are leading researchers in their field and appear to be independent,” Thacker wrote.

According to Thacker, “ghostwriting drives up the costs of healthcare, because these studies trick doctors into prescribing drugs that may be more costly, and sometimes less safe,” he wrote.

These practices have existed for years and continue today, Lyons-Weiler said:

“Ghostwriting is the scientific analog of identity theft. A corporation hires a PR firm to script outcomes and then rents the reputation of compliant academics. Those papers enter the permanent record, shape treatment protocols and become the basis for billions in profits.

“Meanwhile, the actual data are inaccessible, the authorship is fiction and the peer reviewers are misled. It is malpractice disguised as scholarship.”

Epidemiologist and public health research scientist M. Nathaniel Mead, Ph.D., who has ghostwritten scientific articles, said the practice can be performed ethically. However:

“Any time you have paid writers or industry insiders crafting articles that get credited to prestigious academics or widely respected ‘experts,’ there’s a risk to both public health and intellectual integrity.

“Many of these articles will disguise corporate agendas as objective or reliable evidence, often inflating claims of drug efficacy and invariably downplaying risks to boost sales.”

An article published in 2000 in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology about the herbicide Roundup concluded that Roundup “does not pose a health risk to humans.”

However, internal corporate emails released in 2017 as part of federal litigation against Roundup manufacturer Monsanto revealed that the paper was ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, who did not reveal their conflict of interest.

The paper has continued to shape public policy. Even after the 2017 revelations, government documents from public health agencies worldwide — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health New Zealand: Te Whatu Ora — still cite the paper without warnings or caveats.

‘Regulatory capture of epistemology itself’

In today’s report, Thacker wrote that Kutcher, having successfully secured The Coast’s 2011 retraction, has since “morphed himself into … an expert on misinformation.”

Kutcher launched “Science Up First” in 2021 with Canadian law professor Timothy Caulfield, described by Thacker as a “known misinformation crank.” According to Thacker, the “Science Up First” initiative “purported to attack COVID-19 conspiracies, but really served as a cheerleading squad for Big Pharma.”

In a 2023 op-ed, Kutcher wrote that “Speech is free, but lies cost” and suggested that Canadian authorities develop policies to “effectively identify and address health misinformation.”

Thacker told The Defender:

“Bad information abounds, was around in the past, and will be around in the future. Terms like ‘misinformation’ began popping up in recent years to describe information that academics think is bad. But we often find that ‘misinformation’ has turned out to be true.”

Lyons-Weiler said:

“There is a certain poetic cynicism in watching authors of fraudulent studies recast themselves as guardians of truth. The same individuals who distorted evidence for profit now police public speech for ideology. It’s not redemption — it’s regulatory capture of epistemology itself.”

According to Thacker’s 2011 report, mainstream media like the BBC and The Boston Globe, and scientific publications including The BMJ, investigated the fraud linked to Study 329 in the late 2000s. Thacker said that coverage by mainstream news media and scientific publications has since changed.

He added:

“As the media has compressed in size, more and more reporters simply act as mouthpieces for academics. It’s why I call them ‘scicomm,’ for science communication. They don’t do any actual reporting. They just communicate the science as it’s handed to them by academics.”

Scientific, medical journals under government scrutiny

The integrity of scientific and medical journals has increasingly come under scrutiny by the Trump administration, which in July terminated about $20 million in contracts with Springer Nature, which publishes nearly 3,000 journals, including Nature Medicine.

In a May interview, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he may bar government scientists from publishing in such journals and proposed that federal health agencies create in-house alternatives.

Last month, the White House’s MAHA Commission Report revealed that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will launch a database tracking payments by the health industry to scientists in an effort to identify conflicts of interest.

According to a letter published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Big Pharma paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at JAMA, The BMJ, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine between 2020 and 2022.

Hooker said he is “very pleased that the current administration is addressing conflict of interest issues in medical journals.” He said reform “is way overdue and will help to restore scientific curiosity and inquiry where questions that have been taboo may now be openly asked, challenged and explored.”

In the face of heightened scrutiny, some publishers have doubled down on their existing practices. Earlier this month, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy announced they would launch an alternative to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Demasi wrote that the lawsuit against the JAACAP “could reshape publishing,” if a court ruling compels the journal to retract the Keller article. Such a ruling “would also expose the deep entanglement between professional societies, journal editors, and the pharmaceutical companies that fund them.”

In an interview last week on “The War Room” with Steve Bannon, Lyons-Weiler said that Kennedy is aware of 28 scientific studies that were “wrongfully retracted.”

“I think that we’re going to probably see some prosecutions on the basis of defrauding the federal government,” Lyons-Weiler told Bannon.

Thacker said such journals survive because of NIH funding that is now at risk. “I understand this is coming,” Thacker said.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/lawsuit-retraction-journal-article-gsk-paxil-safe-effective-scientific-fraud/?utm_id=20251102

As Trump fails to disarm the regional Resistance on behalf of “Israel” – Blair is brought in to further pressure Lebanon to disarm the local Resistance.

Vanessa Beeley

Information obtained by Al-Akhbar newspaper reveals preparations are underway for a visit by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Beirut next week. He will head a delegation whose nature and nationality remain unknown, though it is likely to include the team of experts assisting him on the Gaza file.

Informed sources stated that Blair will meet with the three presidents, but the dates have not yet been set. The objectives of the visit and any message Blair may be carrying are also unknown. Some circles speculate that he may later be tasked with overseeing the implementation of a new colonial plan intended to be imposed on Lebanon, similar to what is happening in Gaza.

These sources added that they have linked the visit to what the Americans are saying about the future of the situation on Lebanon’s southern border, particularly the project to establish a civilian council to manage the affairs of the southern region. The Americans claim they want to transform this region into an economic zone and an area for tourism, industrial, and agricultural investment. This is very similar to the “Free Trade Zone” plan for Gaza that has been floated periodically for years. Tony Blair’s influence has become more apparent since the fall of Damascus in December 2024 which brought his former security advisor, Johnathan Powell, back into the region to coach and rebrand Jolani and the Takfiri entourage as political Empresarios.

It is no coincidence that, with Blair’s visit looming, the Zionists have increased their bombing campaign in southern Lebanon, targeting villages close to Sour (Tyre) – in Taybeh and Tyr Diba – yesterday, after issuing evacuation demands for civilians to move at least 500 metres away from the designated targets. While claims from the Zionist side are that these are buildings with connection to Hezbollah – it is no different to the bombing campaigns in Gaza that claim to be targeting Hamas while obliterating civilian infrastructure and homes.

The following is a summary of the most recent Zionist ceasefire violations in southern Lebanon:

During the night of November 6, 2025, Israeli warplanes and drones, operating with U.S. support, carried out a series of airstrikes and bombardments across multiple locations in southern Lebanon.

Details of the attacks:

• Ras Naqoura: An Israeli aircraft dropped four bombs along the coast. No casualties reported.

• Abbasiyah (Sharafiat area): Enemy warplanes targeted the outskirts of the town, resulting in one martyr and eight wounded.

• Aytoron (Dabsha area): A hostile drone strike occurred. No casualties reported.

• Multiple southern towns were hit by Israeli air raids following a series of warnings from the occupation army:

• Ayta al-Jabal — No casualties

• Tayr Daba — One wounded

• Kfar Dunin — No casualties

• Al-Tayba — No casualties

• Zawtar Sharqiya — No casualties

• Yaroun: Israeli forces fired flares over the town’s sky.

• Wadi Hunin: Targeted with heavy machine-gun fire. No casualties reported.

• Alma Shaab: Machine-gun sweeps carried out along the town’s outskirts. No casualties reported.

• Rumtha and Majidiya sectors: The occupation army conducted intense machine-gun sweeps from the Rumtha position toward Bsatra, and from occupied Gajar toward Majidiya. No casualties reported.

The trigger for these events is an open letter (see the  full letter below the article) from Hezbollah published yesterday 6th November:

In an open letter addressed to His Excellency the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, the Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, and the Lebanese people, Hezbollah emphasized its commitment to national sovereignty. It categorically rejected any attempt to drag Lebanon into new negotiation rounds that serve the interests and aggressive objectives of the Zionist enemy.

The party affirmed that the ceasefire declaration of November 27, 2024—which followed the Zionist aggression against Lebanon—constitutes part of the implementation of International Resolution 1701. This declaration obligates the enemy to withdraw beyond the Blue Line. However, as usual, the Zionist entity has continued its violations by land, sea, and air, defying all calls to cease its attacks and persisting in the violation of Lebanese sovereignty without restraint.

In its statement, the party indicated that the government, through its hasty decision regarding the “exclusivity of arms,” provided the enemy with an opportunity to exploit the situation and resurrect the issue of disarming the resistance. Hezbollah described this as a national transgression, emphasizing that the weapons that protected Lebanon are not subject to bargaining or negotiation. They stated that such discussions can only occur within a comprehensive national framework, as part of an overall strategy for defending the country.

Hezbollah stressed that the Israeli enemy is not only targeting the resistance but also seeks to weaken Lebanon in all its components and impose political and security subservience upon it. It called for a unified national stance against blackmail and aggression, affirming that negotiating with a treacherous enemy supported by the American hegemon will only result in further concessions. The party asserted that the national stance must focus on implementing the ceasefire agreement in its entirety and pressuring the enemy to abide by it, rather than being drawn into new negotiating proposals that pave the way for normalization or compromise Lebanon’s right to resist occupation.

In conclusion, Hezbollah affirmed that defending Lebanon “is not a decision of war or peace, but a legitimate right and a national duty in the face of an enemy that imposes war and continues its aggression.” It renewed its pledge to stand alongside the army and the people to protect the land, sovereignty, and national dignity.

The letter concluded: “We pledge to our proud people that we will remain steadfast in our position of honor and righteousness, neither wavering nor retreating, as long as there is occupation and aggression on our land, and as long as the pulse of resistance beats in our hearts—a resistance that knows no defeat.”

This week, President Aoun had instructed the Lebanese Armed Forces to intervene to prevent any Zionist incursions into Lebanese territory. On November 6th: An Israeli infantry unit crossed the blue line in the Kroum al-Marah sector, on the outskirts of the town of Meiss el-Jabal, Lebanon. In response the Lebanese army deployed reinforcements to the area, the Israeli infantry unit then retreated back to Israeli territory.

What we are seeing is an increase in frustration from the Trump envoys to the region – economic hawk Tom Barrack and his sidekick Morgan Ortagus. Zionist media has been pushing the narrative that Hezbollah is rebuilding its strength and military capabilities to an unacceptable threat level for “Israel”. Blair’s arrival suggests that Washington is moving to Plan B, perhaps the idea of an ‘international body’ presided over by Blair.

What is very clear, the war against the Resistance Axis is not going to end. It is an existential war that the Resistance fights – to preserve their culture, heritage and independence that rejects the incoming Zionist expansion and supremacy in the region.

These events in Lebanon follow on from the threats issued to the Iraqi Defence Minister, Thabit Al-Abbasi, by the US War Minister Pete Hegseth:

Abbasi reported the warning in a Nov. 2 interview with local media, saying that US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in a call alluded to “imminent military operations” in the region. The following from a report in Amwaj Media.

According to Abbasi, the conversation also involved an explicit US demand that “no faction in Iraq” should intervene in such a scenario.

Hegseth is said to have concluded the call with a pointed threat: “This is your final warning—and you know very well how this administration will respond.”

Highlighting the apparent gravity of the exchange, Abbasi emphasized that the 11-to-12-minute conversation was held in the presence of Iraq’s top military leadership.

The contention over the alleged US warning follows recent reports in Israeli media which claim that “pro-Iran militias” are preparing “long-range missile and drone” attacks on Israel.

Israel’s Walla News also suggested that Shiite armed groups may be planning “ground maneuvers” in Israel through Jordan and Syria.

Washington’s project to disarm the Iraqi Resistance factions has also been a failure. Hegseth’s warning suggests an imminent regional escalation.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/11/07/blair-emerges-on-the-lebanon-scene-as-israel-escalates-aggression-on-southern-towns/