conflict
Israel launches new form of terrorism with its exploding pager attacks in Lebanon

From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Israel worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. Recent exploding pager attacks in Lebanon killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children.
Israel has launched a new form of terrorism according to former CIA director Leon Panetta, which he says will have far reaching “repercussions” throughout the world.
The terrorist campaign is said to have killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children, who are not engaged in the fighting against Israel.
Describing last week’s wave of remotely detonated pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, Panetta told CBS News on Sunday:
“This has gone right into the supply chain. When you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, ‘What the hell is next?’ This is a tactic that has repercussions, and we really don’t know what those repercussions are going to be.”
Panetta’s remarks, reported in the Times of Israel on September 23, referred to revelations that Israel had spent 15 years preparing the attacks, infiltrating mobile device supply chains to transform handheld electronics into remotely triggered bombs.
An indication of how far-reaching these repercussions will be was given by Panetta, also the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
“The forces of war are largely in control right now,” Panetta continued, warning that the “ability to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days” has brought the world into a new “war of terror,” in which anyone with a mobile electronic device may be targeted without warning.
“Mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future,” said Panetta, echoing reports that state “Israel’s pager attacks have changed the world,” leaving “us all vulnerable.”
The New York Times report presented a stark conclusion:
“But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.”
“It could be deployed against a military during a war or against civilians in the run-up to a war.”
The attacks conducted by Israel have been largely reported to have targeted members of Hezbollah. The examination of the facts tests the claim that the pagers were detonated solely against a “military” in this case. The United Nations has already condemned the tactic as a war crime.
Copycat attacks?
With the initial wave of attacks often presented as a “James Bond” style flash of brilliance, later reports considered the possibility of “copycat” attacks.
Philip Ingram, a former senior British military intelligence officer, told Britain’s inews, “There are real risks of copycat actions. A large organized crime group could do something like this.”
Yet the planting of explosives and ball-bearings in pagers requires a degree of coordination beyond the capability of non-state criminals. Ingram explained, “However, something of the scale and sophistication we have seen this week is really only the purview of a nation state actor.”
So far, only the nation state of Israel has dedicated its resources to the transformation of personal devices into instruments of death.
A war crime?
The attacks have been reported to have killed and injured thousands of “Hezbollah members,” giving the impression of a targeted wave of sophisticated assassinations of enemy soldiers. Yet two children were among the 37 dead, with a UN report showing a diplomat was killed in what it termed an act of “murder” and “a terrifying violation of international law.”
“Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices … inevitably violate humanitarian law,” the report said, by “failing to distinguish” between civilians and combatants.
The Jerusalem Post reported that only “a majority” of the thousands injured and killed “were members of the group,” which is an admission that civilians were indeed targeted.
In addition to the “war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks,” the UN report pointed out that “[h]umanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects,” and that “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary.”
What is Hezbollah?
Hezbollah is not merely a military organization. It also runs supermarkets, provides education and healthcare, and has a political wing, with members elected to over a third of Lebanon’s Parliament. It is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, with various European nations reserving that label for its military wing alone.
The New York Post’s claim that “thousands of Hezbollah fighters” were injured in the attacks excludes this important distinction between civilian and military members, legitimizing the “horrifying wounds to the groins and hands” of people severely injured whilst at home or shopping in supermarkets.
The U.K.’s Channel Four News was more measured, reporting only that “Hezbollah fighters were among thousands injured” in the attacks, which also took place in Syria and in Iraq.
NPR’s report similarly offered no evidence that any of those killed and injured were in fact combat soldiers, stating, “Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.”
Doctors in Lebanon reported “apocalyptic” scenes, with thousands of patients arriving at once with injuries to their eyes and hands.
A media success with no military goal?
Early reports questioned the military success of the operation, with the New York Times describing it as “a tactical success with no strategic goal.” In an additional report, the Times confirmed the operation was ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, September 17.
The wave of heavy airstrikes on Lebanon which followed the detonation of pagers and walkie-talkies have also been reported as strikes on Hezbollah. With up to 500 killed, including 35 children, Reuters warned “tens of thousands of civilians” had begun to flee Southern Lebanon. The same report repeated Netanyahu’s address to the Lebanese people, in which he stated, “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah.”
Yet the claim that Israel’s attacks are destroying Hezbollah’s military capability have been strongly challenged.
“This is bunkum,” said Alastair Crooke, who lives in Lebanon. The former British diplomat explained to Judge Andrew Napolitano that most of those targeted in the pager attacks were not military members at all.
Secondly, he says, Hezbollah’s missiles are buried deep underground, rendering the airstrikes practically useless in destroying them.
Crooke’s blunt dismissal of these claims follows questions asked about the military purpose of both stages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon.
Israel has ‘no plan for peace’
Israel’s pager attacks have been recognized as a logistical and media victory by intelligence experts, but reports have also shown they have had no effect on Hezbollah’s war-fighting capability.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer who served in the Middle East told the Washington Post, “This is the most impressive kinetic operation I can recall in my career.”
“The scope was staggering.”
Yet the Post’s report goes on to cite White House and Israeli insiders expressing doubts over the move – and also concerning Israel’s apparent lack of any clear strategy at all.
“Some officials have questioned how much the United States should support Israel if that conflict spirals into a broader war that drags in the Americans even further,” said the Post, citing one anonymous “inside American adviser.”
“The U.S. will have to decide how much they want to do to help Israel, and I don’t know what the answer to that is,” said the source, who would only speak unidentified due to the “sensitive” nature of openly questioning U.S. support for Israel. The source went on:
“[The U.S. will] likely continue to supply Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself, but there are serious voices in the administration who wonder, ‘Israel did this to themselves – why should we help them?’”
As the Post also notes, “Israel did not inform its most important allies in Washington in advance, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it was responsible for the attacks.
Questions over Israeli grand strategy have persisted for months. In July, the Washington Post reported that Israel “has no plan for peace,” with no end in sight to its war in Gaza. In the wake of the pager attacks, Bronwen Maddox of the U.K.’s Chatham House concluded in a report filed from the Lebanon border, “The Hezbollah pager attacks prove that Israel has no strategy for peace.”
‘What’s the point?’
Additional reports also doubted any military rationale behind the attacks. In an article showcasing “Israel’s James Bond-style operation” former IDF officer Dr. Ahron Bregman asked, “What’s the point?”
Suggesting the goal was towards a media – and non-military impact – Bregman continued: “This Israeli operation will be at the heart of future Hollywood films, and for good reason, but let’s dive into the more grim reality.”
Bregman says in the absence of any “Israeli tanks” to follow up the attacks, their purpose may be to provoke a response from Hezbollah which “legitimizes” a major war.
“The Israelis are trying to humiliate Hezbollah – forcing it to react forcefully, which will give Israel the international legitimacy to embark on an all-out war with its sworn enemy.”
Warning of the dimensions of this conflict, Bregman, senior teaching fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, said, “These are dangerous days. It might be that we are marching into a big, regional, Middle Eastern war involving not only Israel and Hezbollah but also the likes of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.”
Both waves of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have been of questionable military value. Both have left the combat power of Hezbollah largely intact. The same cannot be said for the lives of those destroyed in them.
The White House is reportedly frustrated with Israel’s actions, seeing them as attempts to provoke a retaliation from Hezbollah and even Iran which would spark a regional war. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. officials also noted with angst that, for nearly a year, the White House and allies have worked to tamp the flames in Lebanon.”
Israel appears to be desperate to fan these flames. Its often insinuated goal is to draw the United States into a regional crisis the White House says it has been working to avoid.
With no plan for peace, Israel has worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. In the absence of any strategy beyond escalation, Israel appears now to be openly seeking to internationalize its war by any means at its disposal.
conflict
Trump’s done waiting: 50-day ultimatum for Putin to end Ukraine war

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Trump is done waiting on Putin. On Monday, he gave Russia 50 days to end the war in Ukraine or face 100% tariffs and sweeping secondary sanctions. It marks a sharp shift — combining economic pressure with a new NATO deal to rush U.S. weapons, including Patriot missiles, to the front lines.
Key Details:
- Speaking from the White House on Monday, Trump warned of 100% tariffs and sweeping secondary sanctions unless Putin agrees to a peace deal by the 50-day deadline. “We’re very, very unhappy,” Trump said, adding the penalties will hit not only Russia but any nation still trading with it.
- Trump also confirmed a NATO agreement to purchase U.S. weapons for immediate transfer to Ukraine, saying, “This is billions of dollars worth of military equipment… quickly distributed to the battlefield.”
- The announcement came as Russian forces claimed new ground in eastern Ukraine and launched record missile strikes. Ukrainian President Zelensky met with Trump’s envoy in Kyiv and thanked the president for “important signals of support.”
🚨 TRUMP JUST GAVE PUTIN AN ULTIMATUM:
50 DAYS to make a PEACE DEAL in Ukraine — or face ***100%*** TARIFFS. pic.twitter.com/CbX1cYRxd5
— MxM News (@mxmnews) July 14, 2025
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump on Monday made clear he’s done waiting. After months of warnings and diplomatic overtures to Moscow, the commander-in-chief delivered a direct ultimatum: end the war in Ukraine within 50 days or prepare for economic devastation. The deadline marks a dramatic shift in Trump’s posture — from seeking a deal to forcing one.
“We’re going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don’t have a deal in 50 days — tariffs at about 100 percent,” Trump said during a press briefing with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House. He described the measures as “secondary tariffs,” aimed at punishing countries still doing business with Russia, and vowed to collapse the economic lifelines keeping Moscow afloat.
The pivot comes as part of a broader strategy recalibration. Since returning to office in January, Trump had sought to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the war “in 24 hours” through direct diplomacy with Putin. That olive branch has now been snapped. Sources close to the administration say Trump’s frustration has grown sharply in recent weeks, especially after a wave of deadly Russian strikes left hundreds of Ukrainian civilians dead or wounded in June.
Rather than continuing to negotiate, Trump is now using American economic power and NATO’s military coordination to tighten the screws. On Monday, he also confirmed a new deal with NATO that will see the alliance buy advanced U.S. weaponry — including the powerful Patriot missile defense systems — and distribute them directly to Ukraine. “Massive numbers,” Rutte emphasized. Trump added that the weapons would be deployed “quickly” and said the U.S. would lead in helping Ukraine repel the increasing onslaught.
“This is billions of dollars worth of military equipment going to NATO… and that’s going to be quickly distributed to the battlefield,” Trump said.
The shift is not just military — it’s diplomatic. Trump’s special envoy, Gen. Keith Kellogg, landed in Kyiv Monday and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In a statement after the meeting, Zelensky described the talks as “productive” and said they covered joint weapons production and expanded cooperation with European partners. He also thanked Trump for the “important signals of support and the positive decisions for both our countries.”
Zelensky’s praise underscores how much the relationship has changed. Just months ago, Trump and his team had sharply criticized Zelensky during a February Oval Office meeting, sparking concerns in Kyiv that the White House was preparing to withdraw support. Now, those fears appear to be replaced with a renewed sense of partnership — one rooted in hard power.
The announcement follows Trump’s Sunday pledge to send additional Patriot systems to Ukraine, reversing earlier plans to pause certain military shipments. The White House made that shift in response to Russia’s relentless missile and drone assaults, which have overwhelmed Ukrainian defenses and pushed civilian casualties to a three-year high, according to the UN.
That urgency is not lost on Trump — who, after months of offering an exit ramp, now appears ready to close it off entirely.
conflict
US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?

A satellite image of the Isfahan nuclear research center in Iran shows visible damage to structures and nearby tunnel entrances from recent US airstrikes. / Satellite image (c) 2025 Maxar Technologies.
Seymour Hersh
The US attack on Iran may not have wiped out its nuclear ambitions but it did set them back years
I started my career in journalism during the early 1960s as a reporter for the City News Bureau of Chicago, a now long-gone local news agency that was set up by the Chicago newspapers in the 1890s to cover the police and fire departments, City Hall, the courts, the morgue, and so on. It was a training ground, and the essential message for its aspiring reporters was: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
It was a message I wish our cable networks would take to heart. CNN and MSNBC, basing their reporting on an alleged Defense Intelligence Agency analysis, have consistently reported that the Air Force raids in Iran on June 22 did not accomplish their primary goal: total destruction of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity. US newspapers also joined in, but it was the two nominally liberal cable channels, with their dislike—make that contempt—for President Donald Trump, that drove the early coverage.
There was no DIA analysis per se. All US units that engage in combat must file an “after-action report” to the DIA after a military engagement. In this case, the report would have come from the US Central Command, located at MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, Florida. CENTCOM is responsible for all US military operations in the Middle East, Egypt, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. One US official involved in the process told me that “the first thing out of the box is you have to tell your boss what happened.” It was that initial report of the bombing attack that was forwarded to DIA headquarters along the Potomac River in Washington and copied or summarized by someone not authorized to do so and sent to the various media outlets.
The view of many who were involved in the planning and execution of the mission is that the report was summarized and leaked “for political purposes”—to cast immediate doubt on the success of the mission. The early reports went so far as to suggest that Iran’s nuclear program has survived incapacitation by the attack. Seven US B-2 “Spirit” bombers, each carrying two deep-penetration “bunker-busters” weighing 30,000 pounds, had flown without challenge from their base in Missouri to the primary target: Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, concealed deep inside a mountain twenty miles north of the city of Qom.
The planning for the attack began with the knowledge that the main target—the working area of the nuclear program—was buried at least 260 feet below the rocky surface at Fordo. The gas centrifuges spinning there were repeatedly enriching uranium, in what is known as a cascade, not to weapons-grade level—uranium-235 isotopes enriched to 90 percent—but to 60 percent. Further processing to create weapons grade uranium, if Iran chose to do so, could be done in a matter of weeks, or less. The Air Force planning group had also been informed before the bombing raid, most likely by the Israelis, who have a vast spy network in Iran, that more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas stored at Fordo had been shipped to safety at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan, 215 miles south of Tehran. Isfahan was the only known facility in Iran capable of converting the Fordo gas into a highly enriched metal—a critical early stage of building the bomb. Isfahan also was a separate target of the US attack on Fordo, and was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine operating in the Gulf of Aden, off Yemen.
As a journalist who for decades has covered the nascent nuclear crisis in the Middle East, it seemed clear to me and to informed friends I have in Washington and Israel that if Fordo somehow survived its bunker-buster attack, as was initially suggested, and continued to enrich more uranium, Isfahan would not. No enrichment, no Iranian bomb.
I’ve been frustrated and angry at cable news coverage for years, and that includes Fox News, too, and decided to try and find the real story. If your mother says she loves you, check it out. And I checked out enough of it to share.
I was told that “the first question for the American planners was how big was the actual workspace at Fordo? Was it a structure? We had to find that out before we got rid of it.” Some of the planners estimated that the working space “was the size of two hockey rinks: 200 feet long and 85 feet wide.” It came to 34,000 square feet. The height of the underground working space was assumed to be ten-and-a-half feet—I was not told the genesis of that assumption—and the size of the target was determined to be 357,000 cubic feet.
The next step was to measure the power of the dozen or more bunker-busters that were planned to be “carefully spaced and dropped” by the US B-2 bombers, using the most advanced guidance systems. (During one high-level session in Washington, one of the Air Force planners was asked what would happen if the B-2’s guidance systems were corrupted by an outside signal. “We’d miss the target” was the answer.)
I was assured that even if the rough estimate of the working space at Fordo was far off, the bombers targeting Fordo each carried a 30,000-pound bomb with an explosive payload of as much as five thousand pounds, which was more than enough to pulverize the mythical hockey rinks, or even a much larger working space.
Some of the bombs were also outfitted with what is known as a hard target void sensing fuze, which enabled the bombs to penetrate multiple layers of a site like Fordo before detonating. This would maximize the destructive effect. Each bomb, dropped in sequence, would create a force of rubble that would cause increasing havoc in the working areas deep inside the mountain.
“The bombs made their own hole. We built a 30,000-pound steel bullet,” the official told me, referring with pride to the bunker-busters.
Most important, he said, was that there were no post-strike hints detected of radioactivity—more evidence that the 450 pounds of enriched uranium had been moved from Fordo to the reprocessing site at Isfahan prior to the US attack there, which was code-named “Midnight Hammer.” That operation included a third US strike at yet another nuclear facility at Natanz.
“The Air Force got everything on the hit list,” the official told me. “Even if Iran rebuilds some centrifuges, it will still need Isfahan. There is no conversion capability without it.”
Why not, I asked, tell the public about the success of the raid and the fact that Iran no longer has a potential nuclear weapon?
The answer: “There will be a top-secret report about all of this, but we don’t tell people how hard we work. We tell the public what we think it wants to hear.”
The US official, asked about the future of the Iranian nuclear program, quickly acknowledged that “there is a communication problem” when it comes to the fate of the program.
The intent of the strike planners, he said, “was to prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon in the near term—a year or so—with the hope they would not try again. The clear understanding was that there was no expectation to ‘obliterate’ every aspect of their nuclear program. We don’t even know what that is.
“Obliteration means the glass—[eliminating] Iran’s nuclear program—is full. The planning and the results are the glass is half-full. For Trump critics, the results are the glass is half-empty—the centrifuges may have survived and four hundred pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium are missing. The bombs could not be assured to penetrate the centrifuge chamber . . . too deep, but they could cover them up [with rocks and other bomb debris] and in the process cause unknown damage to them.
“Whether the 60 percent [enriched uranium] was there or not is irrelevant because without centrifuges they cannot refine it to weapons grade. Add to this the research and refinement and conversion from gas to metal—required for a bomb—at Isfahan are also gone.
“Results? Glass is half-full . . . a couple of years of respite and uncertain future. So now Trump’s defense is Full Glass. Critics? Half-empty. Reality? Half-full. There you are.”
The immediate beneficiary of the use of US force in Iran will not be a more placid Middle East, but Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Air Force and army are still killing massive numbers of Palestinians in Gaza.
There remains no evidence that Iran was on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. But as the world has known for decades, Israel maintains a significant nuclear arsenal that it officially claims does not exist.
This is a story not about the bigger picture, which is muddled, but about a successful US mission that was the subject of a lot of sloppy reporting because of a reviled president. It would have been a breakthrough had anyone in the mainstream press spoken or written about the double standard that benefits Israel and its nuclear umbrella, but in America that remains a taboo.
Subscribe to Seymour Hersh.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Opinion1 day ago
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Alberta1 day ago
Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Daily Caller20 hours ago
‘Strange Confluence Of Variables’: Mike Benz Wants Transparency Task Force To Investigate What Happened in Butler, PA
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day ago
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
-
COVID-191 day ago
Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports