Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. military is prioritizing the protection of its bases in the country from drone attacks after Ukraine launched a surprise attack against Russia earlier this month and Israel is suspected of using the same strategy against Iran.

The Ukraine attack destroyed at least 10 of Moscow’s limited supply of long-range heavy bombers, which are a critical component of Russia’s nuclear capability.

Israel is suspected to have smuggled drone parts into Iran and assembled them before using the drones to attack Tehran’s ballistic missile launchers and silos from within.

U.S. military leaders are increasingly concerned that similar attacks, which leverage low-cost commercial drones against expensive weapons systems, could pose a lasting threat to bases and critical infrastructure throughout the country.

However, the Army and other service branches are struggling to design and deploy appropriate technologies to defend bases on U.S. soil, owing to variables that don’t need to be considered in a war zone.

“How we’re going to [defend bases] in a combat zone is very different from how we would do that in the states, obviously,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said at a House Armed Services Committee on June 4.

One key factor is the Byzantine patchwork of local, state, and federal laws governing drone flights and the military’s own rules of engagement.

Whereas officers at an outpost overseas might simply engage with an unidentified drone approaching their base before any potential harm can occur, the military lacks the authority to engage with drones on U.S. soil, unless those drones directly enter a facility’s airspace.

Even then, options are limited.

The use of kinetic systems that would simply shoot down a drone are out of the question on American soil, according to military personnel, as they are not cost-effective, and would also run the risk of injuring civilians or damaging property when the debris fell to the ground.

That issue highlights the other key factor confounding military planners: A lack of counter-drone systems customized to deal with emergent threats to bases in the United States without endangering civilians.

While the military, and federal government, do have electromagnetic weapons that can knock out drones by interfering with their electrical and navigational systems, these weapons are typically poorly suited to an environment rich in aerial traffic because they affect all electronic systems within a given area.

Such an issue was laid bare on March 1, when more than a dozen flights on final approach to the Reagan National Airport outside Washington received false collision warnings, prompting at least six flights to abort their landings.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) later stated that the false positives were caused by government testing of counter-drone technology near the airport.

Because of that weakness in the system, the Army is now exploring the use of directed energy weapons in its counter-drone operations.

Many such systems, including variants of weapons using lasers, microwaves, and particle and sound beams, are still in development, but they bring their own problems because of high energy consumption.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon’s newest counter-drone weapons would need to draw 100 kilowatts of power to fire a laser in a counter-drone capacity.

That’s more power than the average American household uses in three days, and that figure does not include the additional power requirements for cooling the significant amount of heat generated by such weapons.

It makes defending military installations on U.S. soil from drone attacks an infrastructure problem as well as a defense problem.

New Energy Sources

Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, who also spoke at the hearing, said the directed energy requirements for defending U.S. bases and supply chains from future drone attacks simply can’t be met with today’s power systems.

“For a lot of the tools that are coming out, directed energy, for example, they have incredible energy requirements,” Driscoll said.

“You’re going to have to have spikes of energy come through the lines that just are not set up. The current technology is not sufficient for it.”

The key to solving the nation’s directed energy issues is in the creation of nuclear microreactors, small modular nuclear reactors that would generate power for an individual base and its weapons, he said.

Driscoll’s push toward nuclear power matches an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last month directing the Army to deploy a nuclear reactor at a U.S. base by 2028.

“Advanced nuclear reactors include … small modular reactors, microreactors, and stationary and mobile reactors that have the potential to deliver resilient, secure, and reliable power to critical defense facilities and other mission capability resources,” the order reads.

Read the rest here…

Update (11:37ET): Following President Trump’s new foreign entanglement – bombing Iranian nuclear facilities (which may or may not have taken them out while causing a deep divide amongst MAGA), Vice President JD Vance says he believes their nuclear program has been set back “many years,” and that he feels “very confident that we’ve substantially delayed [Iran’s] development of a nuclear weapon,” adding that it was US intelligence, not Israeli intelligence assessments, that led to Trump’s decision. 

When asked if the United States is at war with Iran, he claimed “No, Kristen, we’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” and called on Iranians to “give peace a chance.

“They can go down the path of peace, or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon – and that’s just not something the United States can accept.” 

“We didn’t blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians,” says @VP.

“The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump’s lead and give peace a chance.” pic.twitter.com/pJ2tpqekom

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 22, 2025

When asked if the US would support an Israeli assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Vance said that it would be “up to the Israelis,” and that the US position is “we don’t want a regime change.”

VP Vance: “No Regime Change” in Iran — U.S. Focused on Nuclear Threat, Not Government Overthrow

– In interviews (e.g. NBC’s Meet the Press), Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear sites aims solely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program—not to… pic.twitter.com/TPOLWCvP06

— GlobalWire (@global_wire_) June 22, 2025

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile insisted to Fox News that “This is not a war against Iran,” adding “Not a shot was fired against us. They didn’t even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing they’d been hit. So it would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliates. So but that’s not our goal.”

Secretary Rubio clears the air on whether America is “at war” with Iran.

“This is not a war against Iran.”

“Not a shot was fired against us. They didn’t even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing… pic.twitter.com/RslL7KbgUz

— Media Lies (@MediasLies) June 22, 2025

He also warned against Iranian retaliation, saying: “If Iran retaliates, it will be the WORST mistake they’ve ever made.”

RUBIO: It would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliated.

But that’s not our goal. We are not declaring war on Iran. We’re not looking for war on Iran. But if they attack us, then I think we have capabilities they haven’t even seen yet. It would be a terrible mistake on their… pic.twitter.com/grpdHegkep

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 22, 2025

Rubio then warned Iran not to close the strait of Hormuz after Iran’s parliament backed its closure, saying “If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It’s economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that.”

Rubio:

“If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It’s economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that” pic.twitter.com/6mXeYXJ6Te

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 22, 2025

Everyone got the script?

Iran, meanwhile in a statement through spox Esmail Baghaei, accused the Trump administration of sabotaging diplomatic efforts – saying “They cannot talk about diplomacy, they betrayed diplomacy,” adding that “diplomacy never ends.” 

Regarding the escalating conflict, Baghaei warned “No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel.”

The Iranian foreign ministry declined to elaborate on Tehran’s likely response to the attacks, or to detail the extent of the damage – only saying in a statement to CNN that Iran “is entitled … to exercise its right of self-defense,” adding “And we will do that for sure.” 

*  *  *

In a Sunday morning press briefing, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated” – but also asserted that the attack did not target the Iranian people or civilians. He hailed the “incredible and overwhelming success” – following President Trump last night saying the same thing. “It’s worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.”

Hegseth said this is part of the commitment of this administration’s vision of “peace through strength”. He continued, “Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.”

For the “bold and brilliant” operation, there was weeks of preparation and precision logistics and “misdirection” at the highest level, involving B-2 bombers going to hit, Hegseth described. “No other country on planet earth” could have conducted this operation.

He also underscored that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was used for the first time in US combat history – also that it was the longest bomber mission of its kind since 2001.

“Just like [IRGC Quds Force General Qasem] Solemani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says ’60 days’ – that when he seeks peace and negotiation – he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear program will not exist. He meant it.”

Hegseth then read aloud Trump’s post to Truth Social last night, soon after the three nuclear sites were struck:

“Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.”

That’s when the US Defense Secretary then warned, “Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before and he means it.” He tried to stress the ‘limited’ scope of the attack and urged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table:

There are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the negotiation table, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says at a Pentagon press briefing.

Scope of operation on Iran was “intentionally limited” Hegseth says he believes the US attack will have a clear psychological impact on how Iran views the future US strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment site at Fordow are believed to have destroyed capabilities there…

To review the details of what happened last night, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 “bunker-buster” bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat.

The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” officials say it’s too early to confirm the full extent of the damage.

America dropped six GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site pic.twitter.com/LaWrHm0c2d

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 22, 2025

Iran, along with international nuclear agencies, reported no radiation leaks, prompting skepticism about the strike’s effectiveness—particularly at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. Iranian officials said damage was minimal and mostly above ground. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization vowed to continue its nuclear program, referring to assassinated nuclear scientists as “martyrs.”

Some degree of political backlash has quickly emerged over the lack of Congressional approval for the strikes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite previously mocking Trump’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, called for a War Powers vote, criticizing the president’s unilateral military action without a clear strategy.

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin bull and Strategy founder Michael Saylor has doubled down on the long-term value of BTC amid fast-changing geopolitical and cryptocurrency adoption trends.

Saylor took the stage with a keynote speech at the BTC Prague 2025 event on Saturday, predicting that the price of Bitcoin would hit $21 million in 21 years.

“I think we’re going to be $21 million in 21 years. It’s a very special time in the network. Maybe the one time in the history of the network where you look out 21 years and you see $21 million,” Saylor stated.

Source: Michael Saylor

Saylor’s latest bullish Bitcoin prediction is a massive increase from his previous forecast made at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville last year, when he predicted that Bitcoin would hit $13 million by 2045.

Massive adoption that “nobody guessed”

In the keynote, Saylor reasoned his growing bullishness on the Bitcoin market with many geopolitical, regulatory and adoption developments, which he said nobody conceived last year.

“Stuff that’s happened in the past 11 months has been extraordinary. The White House has embraced Bitcoin. This is an extraordinary development. We didn’t anticipate this,” Saylor said.

Saylor emphasized that he has always been bullish on Bitcoin, even when it plummeted to $16,000 in the last crypto winter, but Donald Trump’s presidential victory last November “brought a sea change in politics,” he stated.

Michael Saylor at the BTC Prague on June 21, 2025. Source: Trezor

“Although we thought we might have a pro-Bitcoin president, we didn’t think we’d get a strategic Bitcoin reserve. We didn’t think that the president would say America would be the Bitcoin superpower of the world. This is an amazing development,” Saylor added.

The Strategy founder also mentioned growing regulatory and legislative developments around crypto, referring to three crypto-related bills progressing in the US, including the stablecoin-focused Genius Act, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the Bitcoin Act.

“This is something nobody guessed, no one conceived of a year ago. States in the United States are embracing Bitcoin,” Saylor said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who plans to travel to Moscow to meet President Putin on Monday, has reacted to the major US bombing of his country’s nuclear facilities by saying ‘all options’ are on the table militarily, and that this effectively has blown up any efforts at diplomacy.

“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,” he said. “In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”

On Sunday morning, Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to present the overnight attacks as ‘intentionally limited’ in scope, and described that this is not a regime change operation. He told the Iranians to heed Trump’s call to return to the negotiating table, and that the US military is ready to unleash more strikes if need be.

Vice President JD Vance too in fresh statements has expressed hope of pursuing a diplomatic solution. “We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it’s already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program,” Vance told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday “We want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here,” he added.

But at least on a public level, Iran’s foreign ministry is saying the diplomatic path is over as the US has shut the door with its brazen attack. Iran’s official nuclear energy agency has the most interesting characterization of the US action, in the below via state media:

The organization denounced the passive stance of the IAEA, which is not only ignoring the violations but, through its silence, enabling such aggressive behavior.

“It is unfortunate that this action—clearly against international law—has taken place with the indifference and, in some cases, complicity of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the AEOI added.

The statement called on the global community to denounce “lawless jungle behavior” by the US and to stand by Iran in defending its legitimate rights.

The statement further called out ‘the American enemy’ in stating, “The American enemy, through a statement by its president in social media, has officially claimed responsibility for the attacks on these sites, which are under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based on the safeguards agreement and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” And crucially:

Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, says efforts to develop the civilian nuclear sector will go on.

“This is not the first time our facilities are attacked,” Kamalvandi told Iran’s YJC news agency. “Considering our capabilities, the nuclear industry must continue.”

The elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has at the same time declared “now the war has begun” – as the region braces for the coming Iranian response.

Trump Has Bombed Iran. What Happens Next Is His Fault.

The US is the only nation on earth that can rival Israel in its ability to play the victim when the ball they’ve thrown at the wall bounces back.

Reading by Tim Foley. pic.twitter.com/vNNSPxCSWE

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) June 22, 2025

Below is the IRGC statement as reprinted in Iraqi Kurdistan English-language media:

Shortly after the attack, the IRGC published a brief statement on its official X account, writing: “Now the war has begun for us.” The message underscores the gravity of the attack on one of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear sites and suggests that Tehran now considers itself fully engaged in open warfare.

Iran previously warned that it could hit back directly on US bases in the region if it comes under attack. No doubt, the Pentagon and US Central Command (CENTCOM) is bracing are such potential retaliation, which could come in the form of drones and ballistic missiles – as happened in Iraq following the Soleimani assassination during Trump’s first term.

Recent reports have pointed to an American troop drawdown at a couple of bases in Syria, but not a full withdrawal of the occupation. US troops remain in Iraq, but also at many bases just across the water from Iran in the Arab Gulf kingdoms.

Iran’s FM says the attacks are ‘unforgiveable’ and that it made the possibility of diplomacy moot:

‘IRRELEVANT to ask Iran to return to diplomacy, because we WERE in the middle of diplomacy’

Araghchi says US ‘gave green light to Israel, if not INSTRUCTED them to attack nuclear sites’

Adds Israel and US ‘only understand language of threat and force, this is very unfortunate’ https://t.co/NJXtoTz97u pic.twitter.com/vImCTZDs7O

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2025

To review the details of what happened overnight, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 “bunker-buster” bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat. The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” officials say it’s too early to confirm the full extent of the damage. Tehran is signaling only limited damage, and that entrances to the facilities were struck, at this point war propaganda is kicking in, and Iranian leaders will likely only conceal the full extent of the destruction.

In a Sunday morning press briefing, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated” – but also asserted that the attack did not target the Iranian people or civilians. He hailed the “incredible and overwhelming success” – following President Trump last night saying the same thing. “It’s worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.”

Hegseth said this is part of the commitment of this administration’s vision of “peace through strength”. He continued, “Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.”

For the “bold and brilliant” operation, there was weeks of preparation and precision logistics and “misdirection” at the highest level, involving B-2 bombers going to hit, Hegseth described. “No other country on planet earth” could have conducted this operation.

He also underscored that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was used for the first time in US combat history – also that it was the longest bomber mission of its kind since 2001.

“Just like [IRGC Quds Force General Qasem] Solemani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says ’60 days’ – that when he seeks peace and negotiation – he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear program will not exist. He meant it.”

Hegseth then read aloud Trump’s post to Truth Social last night, soon after the three nuclear sites were struck:

“Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.”

That’s when the US Defense Secretary then warned, “Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before and he means it.” He tried to stress the ‘limited’ scope of the attack and urged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table:

There are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the negotiation table, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says at a Pentagon press briefing.

Scope of operation on Iran was “intentionally limited” Hegseth says he believes the US attack will have a clear psychological impact on how Iran views the future US strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment site at Fordow are believed to have destroyed capabilities there…

To review the details of what happened last night, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 “bunker-buster” bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat.

The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” officials say it’s too early to confirm the full extent of the damage.

America dropped six GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site pic.twitter.com/LaWrHm0c2d

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 22, 2025

Iran, along with international nuclear agencies, reported no radiation leaks, prompting skepticism about the strike’s effectiveness—particularly at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. Iranian officials said damage was minimal and mostly above ground. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization vowed to continue its nuclear program, referring to assassinated nuclear scientists as “martyrs.”

Some degree of political backlash has quickly emerged over the lack of Congressional approval for the strikes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite previously mocking Trump’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, called for a War Powers vote, criticizing the president’s unilateral military action without a clear strategy.

In an overnight address to the nation, President Trump announced that U.S. stealth bombers had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s three primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. He issued a direct warning to Tehran, stating that unless the regime agrees to a peace deal with Israel, additional U.S. military action remains on the table. The attack signals Trump’s dramatic geopolitical u-turn after having long advocated for keeping the U.S. out of Middle Eastern wars. 

“This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump told the American people in a three-minute speech from the White House late Saturday night. 

“Remember, there are many targets left,” the president said, adding, “Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”

Before the deployment of six U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers—each armed with a 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator—a satellite intelligence report from Maxar Technologies identified “unusual” activity near the entrance of Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility.

The observed movement on Thursday and Friday showed “unusual truck and vehicular activity” near the entrance of the underground Fordow complex south of Tehran. This may indicate foreknowledge or heightened alert status at Iran’s high-value nuclear sites. 

Newsweek cited Maxar’s report and provided more color on the unusual movements:

Pictures captured on Thursday and Friday showed “unusual truck and vehicular activity” close to the entrance of the underground Fordow complex south of Tehran, satellite imagery giant Maxar said late on Saturday U.S. time.

A total of 16 cargo trucks were spotted on the access road leading up to the Fordow tunnel entrance on Thursday, but most of the trucks had relocated to one kilometer (0.6 miles) northwest of the access road by the following day, Maxar said.

New trucks and multiple bulldozers had appeared close to the main entrance by Friday, with one truck very close to the main tunnel entrance, the satellite imagery provider said.

Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on Thursday (days before the U.S. bombing raid) shows cargo trucks near the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility. 

Maxar satellite imagery of Fordo fuel enrichment facility.

Maxar satellite imagery of Fordo fuel enrichment facility.

In a separate report, post-bombing, X users cite satellite imagery from UK-based Think Tank Open Source Center that shows what appears to be “visible damage to Fordow.”

“Several entry points can be seen, indicating the explosives penetrated deep towards the facility. The entry points are on the ridgelines, which are directly above the centrifuge halls,” breaking conflict news account Megatron wrote on X. 

NEW:

🇺🇸🇮🇷 First satellite imagery shows visible damage to Fordow.

Several entry points can be seen, indicating the explosives penetrated deep towards the facility. The entry points are on the ridgelines, which are directly above the centrifuge halls.

Imagery by UK-based… pic.twitter.com/AKYR5LifeD

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) June 22, 2025

President Trump also issued a warning overnight, stating that if Tehran refuses to negotiate a peace deal, U.S. bombers and fighter aircraft will hit other targets. This scenario aligns with the escalation pathway we outlined in our October 2024 geopolitical report to readers.

And let’s not forget Hollywood has pre-programmed the American people for this…

. . . 

Until then, BYD and its rivals may continue to dominate Brazil’s green-car movement from across the Pacific, even as the long-promised benefits of local EV manufacturing remain out of reach for many Brazilian workers.

Via Remix News,

Belgian conservative-nationalist Dries Van Langenhove has again been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison as a suspended sentence for what the judge said were violations of the Racism and Negationism Act.

The sentence stems from racist memes that were not even posted by him, but by members of a group chat he administrated seven years ago.

The sentence was delivered today by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, although Van Langenhove does not accept the sentence, and the case now goes into cassation.

On X, Van Langenhove simply wrote, “Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.”

Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.

— Dries Van Langenhove (@DVanLangenhove) June 20, 2025

He later clarified upon receipt of the written verdict that the custodial sentence “appears to be a suspended sentence,” which he suspects is “most likely because the prisons in Belgium are literally full of illegal migrants.”

“Most people don’t realize that the end result of such a sentence is the same. One politically incorrect tweet can now put me in jail. One meme sent by someone else in a group chat I am in can turn the suspended sentence into an effective one. This suspended sentence is the gravest form of censorship they could pursue and an effective way to kill activism,” he added.

I just received the written verdict. It’s very long so it will take time to analyse everything, but the 12 month prison sentence appears to be a suspended sentence.

The irony is that I have been fighting against mass migration for well over a decade now, and it has gotten me a… pic.twitter.com/8aeAxzXsLz

— Dries Van Langenhove (@DVanLangenhove) June 20, 2025

Last year, Van Langenhove was sentenced to a one-year prison sentence and a fine of €16,000. He would also be sentenced to be deprived of his right to stand for election for a maximum term of 10 years, but he appealed this verdict in a lower court.

Van Langenhove ran a chat in 2018, but a broadcast from Pano news outlet showed how members exchanged thousands of potentially racist and sexist messages. This included several hundred memes or internet cartoons.

Van Langenhove contended they were jokes and indicated he did not post anything himself. Seven members of the group chat faced criminal prosecution.

Notably, the case in a country like the United States would have never gone to trial due to freedom of expression enshrined in the constitution. However, Belgium and a range of EU countries have not only beefed up hate speech laws but are also using them to prosecute political dissidents and anti-immigration activists, with Van Langenhove now one of the most high-profile targets.

After several delays, the Court of Appeal in Ghent delivered its sentence today.

Van Langenhove was convicted of violations of the Racism and Negationism Act, but the court argued that since the facts date from seven years ago, they merit a lighter sentence. The one-year prison sentence is fully postponed, and the fine is still €16,000. Van Langenhove will also not be deprived of his civil rights.

“It is a black day for free speech, for Flanders, and for Europe,” said Van Langenhove when he came out. “Me, my family, and my environment have been terrorized for humor in a private chat group for seven years. Unfortunately, the court never wanted to listen to me, even now.”

The court, however, found that Van Langenhove cannot use humor as a defense “if the real intention is to incite hatred.”

“In the private Facebook and Discord group, by the way, not only jokes and cartoons were sent, but also many other, ordinary messages that show that Shield & Friends (the chat group’s name) apparently and repeatedly proclaimed discrimination and racism.”

The court argued that even though Van Langenhove did not send the messages, he was responsible.

“He didn’t have it removed, even though he had the option to do so,” said the Court.

It rejected that VRT journalists manipulated the content of the messages, which Van Langenhove claimed.

The Court of Cassation will now review the legality of the judicial decisions, but will not examine the facts themselves. In most cases, the court determines whether the trial should be repeated.

“If necessary, I will then go to the European Court,” said Van Langenhove. “I certainly don’t give up the fight.”

Van Langenhove was on trial with five other defendants, who will receive 80 hours of work and fines of €1,600. However, two others will be sentenced to three years in prison with deferment.

One defendant who expressed regret was convicted, but his term will be suspended under separate conditions.

The case has been broadly watched as a litmus test on free speech conditions in Europe, with the European model focusing less on freedom of speech and more on controlled speech, especially on issues related to race, sex, and immigration.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about how access was obtained to the chat group in the first place, with allegations that a hack attack was conducted.

Read more here…

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Its successful implementation will help optimize the “military Schengen”, bring about a windfall of profits from facilitating the EU’s trade with Asia that could then be reinvested in its ongoing militarization program, and thus altogether pose a very serious national security concern for Russia.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced late last month that his country will invest €1 billion into expanding the Euroterminal Slawkow railway facility in southwestern Poland, which is significantly the EU’s only cargo hub adapted to handle broad-gauge trains from the former Soviet Union. The plan calls for expanding the existing terminal’s capacity from around 285,000 standard containers per year to half a million and building another terminal to boot, while the long-term plan is to build five of them in total.

As RT’s report about this noted, not only does Tusk envisage Poland profiting more from Ukraine like he earlier explicitly declared that his country will now seek to do, but he also foresees this megaproject helping to expand Poland’s trade with the rest of Europe and even Asia due to its location near the intersection of two European transport corridors. The Asian dimension of future Polish trade through Slawkow is curious though since those trains would have to transit through EU-sanctioned Russia.

Either Tusk expects a thaw in EU-Russian tensions or he expects that this trade will be conducted along the multimodal “Middle Corridor” (MC) linking together China and the EU via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, the Black Sea, and then Odessa in this context. About that city’s port, former Polish Deputy Minister of Agriculture Michal Kolodziejczak informally proposed leasing at least one wharf there in April, which was followed by Ukraine inviting Poland to help rebuild its maritime sector.

Moreover, despite bilateral political tensions over Poland’s revival of the Volhynia Genocide dispute and decision to only send more military aid to Ukraine on credit, they signed a cooperation agreement late last month that includes Ukraine helping Polish companies in the country. When coupled with Kolodziejczak’s complementary informal proposal of leasing Ukrainian farmland, the trappings of a master geo-economic plan are emerging that’ll now be briefly described.

Poland is the leader of the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI), which refers to the regional connectivity projects for fostering integration between the countries of Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), including Ukraine in this context. Ukraine is Poland’s agricultural competitor, however, but Kolodziejczak believes that it can be partially co-opted via his informally proposed farmland leases. Leasing at least one wharf in Odessa and expanding Slawkow can then facilitate Polish agricultural and other exports to Asia via the MC.

At the same time, Slawkow’s expansion also enables Poland to profit from logistically facilitating the EU’s role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, especially neighboring economic powerhouse Germany’s. Furthermore, given Slawkow’s proximity to several European transport corridors, Poland can then play a larger role in intra-EU North-South and East-West trade upon this plan’s completion. Not only that, but it could then facilitate some of these same other EU members’ trade with Asia via the MC, profiting all the way.

Suffice to say, Slawkow also has dual military-logistics purposes vis-à-vis the “military Schengen” just like other major 3SI projects, and some of the profits reaped from the successful implementation of this master geo-economic plan will predictably be reinvested in modernizing Poland’s outdated military-industrial complex.

Poland is also expected to use these profits to purchase more military equipment from the US and South Korea.

This makes Slawkow a very serious national security concern for Russia.

Authored by Tamuz Itai via The Epoch Times,

Just before dawn on June 13, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion, its largest air campaign ever, deploying over 200 fighter jets in coordinated waves that dropped more than 330 munitions on at least 100 strategic targets across Iran. The Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant—vital for housing roughly 1,700 IR4 and IR6 centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels—was hit hard, its above-ground portion severely damaged. Israel also struck additional nuclear sites near Esfahan, Arak, Fordow, Parchin, and multiple IRGC bases—evidence of a meticulously calibrated campaign designed to hobble Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Yet not every fortress fell.

The deeply buried Fordow facility—shielded under hundreds of feet of rock—remains intact, beyond the reach of Israel’s arsenal.

It’s precisely this gap that has stirred urgent talk in Washington: should the United States now bring out its GBU57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the 15-ton bunker-buster designed to penetrate hardened underground sites?

When Precision Strikes Collide With Political Calculus

Iran responded almost immediately, unleashing a barrage of over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones toward Israeli territory. The Iron Dome and allied air defenses neutralized the bulk of this threat, with only a fraction breaching the shield, causing limited but symbolic damage. U.S. intelligence officials reported that Iran expended nearly a quarter of its missile stockpile—estimated originally between 2,000 and 3,000—in just days, a testament to its waning capacity.

President Trump, who issued a 60-day deadline in the spring demanding that Iran curtail its nuclear pursuits, faces a choice. According to The Wall Street Journal, he has privately approved military options, including U.S. strikes, yet holds his hand in the public arena—supporting Israel through missile defense deployments and regional force posturing while refraining from final orders. Trump’s posture is not aggressive by impulse—it’s measured with intent. His record suggests he is more anti-failure than anti-action, ready to act decisively, but only with the promise of lasting results.

Bunkers, Bombs, and the Burden of What Comes Next

It’s one challenge to dispatch bunker-busters; it’s another to envision the aftermath. Should a U.S. strike succeed in obliterating Fordow, the question becomes: What fills the vacuum it leaves?

One optimistic scenario, mentioned by some, centers on Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s exiled son, potentially returning as a transitional figure. A domestic reformer with ties to expatriate moderates, Pahlavi could lay groundwork for a Western-aligned governance, economic reopening, and perhaps even a regional peace architecture reminiscent of the Abraham Accords. But optimism must be tempered. After Saddam Hussein was toppled in Iraq, the country unraveled into sectarian warfare and militant fragmentation, giving rise to ISIS, and later Iranian influence—a sobering aftermath of authoritarian collapse. Iran, for all its faults, retains stronger institutional and historical coherence. Unlike Iraq which was a new country, Iran has centuries of common history.

Still, signs of stress are evident: Tehran has seen mass evacuations; the economy teeters under the weight of sanctions and societal unrest; and the ruling elite, already rattled by losses in Natanz and elsewhere, appear divided. Left unmanaged, this fracture could spawn armed militias—some with control over nuclear-capable or radiological materials—raising the specter of “dirty bombs” that threaten global security.

From Shadows to Sky: Israel’s Intelligence Masterstroke

What elevates Operation Rising Lion from tactical strike to operational marvel is the intelligence architecture underpinning it. All the pieces were prepared over years. For months, Mossad planted explosive drones, sabotaged radar sites, and guided payloads into Iran—a strategy that Bloomberg describes as “hybrid warfare par excellence.” The agency’s creation of an on-ground drone base—believed to be within Iran’s central provinces—enabled precise neutralization of missile launchers and air defenses.

High-end platforms, including F-15I Ra’am “Thunder” fighters outfitted with 2,000-pound BLU109 bunker-busters, complemented stealth missions flown by F35I Adir jets, supported by mid-air refueling and advanced Israeli targeting pods. The synergy between covert human intelligence, cyber operations, drones, and manned aircraft has redefined the upper limits of modern precision warfare.

Hidden Costs: China’s Billion-Dollar Middle East Investment

Amid geopolitical tremors, Beijing watches not with idle detachment but with vested interest. The March 2021 25-year China–Iran strategic partnership, valued at an estimated $300–400 billion, binds China to sustained investment in Iran’s energy, telecoms, transportation, and potentially military sectors.

For China, Iran serves multiple purposes: a sanctioned oil source (allowing the CCP to buy oil cheaper), a bridgehead into Middle Eastern geopolitics, and a lever to distract and divide the West. Should Iran’s regime collapse entirely, China loses that leverage—but if the country fractures, Beijing stands to exploit a fragmented state and erect a new foothold, much as it did post-U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

America’s Crossroads: Strategy Over Showmanship

The gravest miscalculation would be to treat forthcoming U.S. action as another stand-alone military strike. It’s not about the thrill of bunker-busting—it’s overshadowed by the imperative of foresight. U.S. planners must ask: Do we have a viable political roadmap? Can we guide post-strike governance? Do our allies and the international community align on reconstruction or transitional stability? Crucially, can we prevent Beijing from capitalizing on the aftermath?

These are not hypothetical queries—they are the strategic architecture of modern intervention, and I assume over the past week, or more, the U.S. administration has been busy behind the scenes working out these scenarios and reaching out to allies and others.

Conclusion: Legacy Wears the Blueprint, Not the Bomb

The coming decision—whether to drop bunker-busters on Fordow—will echo for generations. A purely kinetic victory that lacks follow-through risks turning tactical success into strategic liability. Worse yet, it could gift Beijing a new canvas of influence at a moment when the West seeks to check its expansion.

President Trump—or any American leader—faces a rare moment of strategic crossroads: drop the bombs, yes—but also draft the blueprint for Iran’s next chapter. Victory without vision is hollow. Only with both can today’s mission transcend into lasting legacy.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

A United States Army colonel has been removed from his position on the Pentagon staff supporting the Joint Chiefs after his Israel-critical social media posts were publicized by Jewish News Syndicate (JNS). Until this week, Army Col Nathan McCormack led the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Levant and Egypt branch. That team is part of the Joint Staff J5, which proposes strategies, plans, and policy recommendations to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Within hours of Tuesday’s JNS report, McCormack was yanked from his post, with a Pentagon official telling JNS:

“The individual is being returned to [the Army] while the matter is being investigated…The information on the X account does not reflect the position of the Joint Staff or the Department of Defense…Our global alliances and partnerships are vital to our national security, enhancing our collective defense, deterrence and operational reach.” 

Here are the published comments that led to McCormack’s removal: 

• May 2025: “Netanyahu and his judeosupremacist cronies are determined to prolong the conflict for their own goals: either to remain in power or to annex the land.”

• June 2024: “The more Israel’s death cult escalates toward Hezbollah, the more we will see show-of-force attacks like this and 13 April.” 

• June 2024: “The U.S. has not been an honest broker. We have overwhelmingly enabled Israel’s bad behavior.”

• May 2024: Amid talk of pushing Gaza residents into other countries, McCormack wrote, “[Israel] wants to expel them and cleanse ‘Eretz Israel’ of ethnic Palestinians.” 

• April 2024: “I’ve lately been considering whether we might be Israel’s proxy and not realized it yet. Our worst ‘ally.’ We get literally nothing out of the ‘partnership’ other than the enmity of millions of people in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.” 

• Oct 2023: “I agree that Israel has an absolute right to respond militarily, and that civilians may legally be caught in the crossfire, but you are ignoring the requirement of proportionality. Israel’s responses always (always—not hyperbole) disproportionately target Palestinian civilians.” 

The JNS report that prompted McCormack’s removal from the J5 gave no indication of how his semi-anonymous posts came to the pro-Israel outlet’s attention. Up until his 2021 death, zealously pro-Israel billionaire and mega-campaign-contributor Sheldon Adelson was JNS’s largest single donor​​​​. The JNS article included a disapproving quote from another Adelson-funded entity, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which — despite its generic-sounding name — declared in its initial tax-exempt-status-filing that its goal was to “enhance Israel’s image in North America.” 

McCormack’s posts were made on X under an account using the name “Nate” and the handle “@mick_or_mack,” with a profile that used a cartoon version of himself. His account no longer exists, but several of his posts are still viewable via internet archive links. McCormack didn’t strive for full anonymity, as he once posted a photo of a Meritorious Service Medal certificate showing his full name. In May, he replied to an X user, “I’m the Joint Staff J5 Israel branch chief.” 

The Pentagon told JNS another officer has been assigned to “look into the matter,” but it’s not clear that McCormack violated any Army policies. The branch’s social media guide says “soldiers are encouraged to express their opinions of the political process online and offline.” It advises soldiers to “avoid use of DoD titles, insignia, uniforms or symbols in a way that could imply DoD sanction or endorsement of content on your personal page.” McCormack’s profile included a disclaimer that his posts “do not represent the position of the Department of Defense or any of its components.” Then again, one of his posts might be read as attributing a position to the DOD, as he wrote:

“Along with the World Health Organization and United Nations, we (Department of Defense, Department of State and the U.S. Intelligence Community) consider the Gaza Health Ministry figures to be generally reliable (though not precise), but probably less so now than they were originally due to the general destruction and chaos in Gaza.”

Even if he’s spared any formal discipline, it’s safe to say there’s zero chance McCormack will be returning to his position on the J5 staff. Beyond its general influence over US policy and personnel, Israel has a history of a strong presence directly inside the Pentagon. Here’s how former Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson — who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff amid the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — described what he witnessed:  

🚨Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: ‘It’s UNQUESTIONABLE that the Epstein business was heavily influenced by MOSSAD!’

‘I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 2002. The Pentagon was infiltrated by Mossad. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance to the… pic.twitter.com/rZtnFTPc1k

— Going Underground (@GUnderground_TV) June 9, 2025

A Dallas native and Texas A&M graduate, McCormack was commissioned as an infantry second lieutenant just two months after the United States invaded Iraq based on the false pretense that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear weapon. As the United States contemplated that invasion, Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress: 

“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever.” 

“If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” 

McCormack would later be deployed to Iraq, where he surely witnessed for himself the utter emptiness of Netanyahu’s claims, and the catastrophic consequences of acting on them. As the Pentagon participated in deliberations over joining another Middle East war on nearly-identical premises, Colonel McCormack’s contrarian perspective might have been particularly valuable at such a pivotal moment.