Sanhedrin to America: The Iran deal is a fantasy, and it will cost you everything

Sanhedrin to America: The Iran deal is a fantasy, and it will cost you everything

Tamar Stein

On 7 Tammuz 5786, June 23, 2026, the nascent Sanhedrin, the Jewish court reconstituted in Israel after a 1,600-year absence, issued a formal ruling addressed to the American people, warning that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding signed in Switzerland is built on illusion and places the United States in existential danger. The court opened its declaration with the ancient Aramaic legal formula bemutav beit dina ke-ḥada havina — “we were convened together as a single court” — a phrase that signals the ruling carries the full weight of a properly constituted rabbinic tribunal. The message: America is making one of the greatest strategic miscalculations in its history.

President Trump and Iran declared they had reached an initial agreement intended to end more than three months of war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The deal, signed in Switzerland, was described by Trump as complete: “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” 

The initial pact, a memorandum of understanding, starts with reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. The deal on the table includes Iran’s commitment to halt enrichment and dismantle its nuclear sites, but the length of any pause remains a point of disagreement; the United States is reportedly pushing for twenty years while Iran reportedly will not go above ten. Iran’s state news agency made Iran’s position plain: it would negotiate on the nuclear issue solely within the framework of its “fundamental principles” and would not give up enrichment.

The Sanhedrin is unimpressed.

The court’s statement opens with an unusual cultural analysis. Every civilization, it argues, has a single defining characteristic. The Greeks prized man; the Romans, power; the Germans, intellect; the Indians, spirituality; the French, sexuality. Americans, says the Sanhedrin, are defined by imagination — and it was imagination that gave the world Disneyland, Disney World, and Star Wars. The court does not mean this as a compliment. It means that the same faculty that generates great entertainment also drives American foreign policy, and that in the arena of geopolitics, fantasy kills.

The court then lays out its indictment of the Iranian regime, point by point. It notes that Iran has murdered more than 50,000 of its own citizens since the Islamic Revolution, executed at least 1,639 people in 2025 alone, a 68 percent increase over 2024, with an average of roughly four hangings per day, including 48 women. UN experts described the pace as “industrial scale” that “defies all accepted standards of human rights protection.” 

The regime has invested hundreds of billions in ballistic missiles and a nuclear program, and as of May 2025 possessed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. It has poured hundreds of billions more into proxy forces — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — specifically to export terror. At every mass assembly its leadership chants “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

The Sanhedrin’s question, stripped of all diplomatic language, is this: what rational observer looks at that record and concludes that a trillion dollars in oil revenue, unfrozen assets, reconstruction funds, and payments for access to the Strait of Hormuz will suddenly be redirected toward tourism, factories, and civilian construction?

The Bible long ago described the peril of trusting a sworn enemy. As the prophet Jeremiah warned: “They have healed the wound of My people lightly, saying ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14). The Sages understood that a peace proclaimed by the wicked is not peace — it is a temporary repositioning before the next assault.

The Wider Danger

The Sanhedrin does not limit its concern to the Iranian threat alone. The court warns that China, Russia, and North Korea are watching American decision-making with interest, and what they see is weakness. Experts have cautioned that the MOU leaves many of the most challenging issues unresolved, noting, “We have been here before only to discover the parties cannot bridge the remaining gaps.” The court’s warning is that adversaries do not see an administration making a hard deal; they see an administration buying an illusion and calling it a victory.

The court further warns that the imaginary peace carries an internal American dimension. It predicts that armed militia groups operating within the United States will see the instability created by this agreement as a signal to act, triggering what the Sanhedrin calls milḥemet Yom HaDin, the War of the Day of Judgment, a civil reckoning.

More.....

The Downsides of Social Media Bans

Under-16 social media ban will be used to shut down political dissenters

Rhoda Wilson

David Thunder

Just days before he announced his resignation, Keir Starmer announced a plan to ban under-16s in the UK from accessing social media.

The proposed ban will lead to a massive government-controlled surveillance infrastructure. It will be exploited to monitor and control the behaviour and speech of all, including adults.  The UK government has form; the proposed ban will be used to shut down political dissenters rather than just restricting underage internet use.

Starmer Will Not Tell You About The Downsides of Social Media Bans

This morning, Sir Keir Starmer announced his resignation as UK Prime Minister. Though his government is not the first to restrict citizens’ speech in Britain, one of his darker legacies is the intensification of Britain’s censorship regime. Indeed, his parting gift, just a week before his resignation, was the announcement of a plan to ban under-16s from accessing social media in Britain. Unless his successor does a U-turn in the coming months, Britain is on course to introduce one of the most far-reaching social media surveillance systems in the world.

Starmer announced his plan to exclude under-16s from social media at a press conference on 15 June. He planned to introduce a comprehensive social media ban for under-16s, a step he argued was necessary to “give kids their childhood back.” “Tech giants had their chance and failed,” he said, “but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”

Starmer’s fighting words were dripping with benevolence and nobility. But as Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help’.” Government officials have a compelling interest in protecting their own power and enhancing their control over society. So, when they advocate a major intervention in the public sphere and wax lyrical about “saving our children,” it is not wise to just take their word for it.

Any massive intervention in social life, in particular one backed by coercive force or financial sanctions, is likely to have at least some significant downsides. And this is indeed the case for the proposed social media ban.

Unfortunately, many well-intentioned citizens do not see this. They focus on the “emergency” of social media harms and on the promised benefits of government action, and turn a blind eye to the potential risks of an age-based social media ban. One hears the argument, “What is your solution?” as if the absence of a quick-fix solution justified any alternative, no matter how destructive.

There are many problems with social media bans, not least the fact that they have limited efficacy for a generation that is quite tech-savvy and will easily find workarounds like VPN apps to get around regulations, and that they may potentially drive some teens into a “dark web” of platforms that operate “under the wire.” But it could be argued that partial efficacy is better than zero efficacy and that the unfortunate fact that some teens are driven into the “dark web” is an acceptable if regrettable cost of improving the lives of many young people.

Even if we accept these sorts of arguments, they do not remove the major risks a social media ban poses for freedom of speech on the internet. 

The main problem with age-based social media bans enforced or overseen by a government is that they alter the government’s relationship with all social media users, of all ages, in disturbing ways. Specifically, they give the government a new gatekeeping power over social media usage by requiring all social media users, of all ages, to present some form of identification as a precondition for accessing social media platforms.

Initially, this new surveillance system might be used exclusively to control underage use of the internet. But it also creates an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure that could later be leveraged by governmental actors to monitor and control the behaviour and speech of adult citizens on the internet.

If that seems far-fetched, consider the fact that people, including journalists, have been investigated by the police in the UK for political commentary on social media that might cause “offence” to some people. Or consider the fact that the Joe Biden administration secretly pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting content that contradicted official government propaganda on masks and vaccines during the pandemic.

With these precedents in place, it would be naive to think that a social media gatekeeping infrastructure would be restricted to its original purpose. It is only a matter of time before such an infrastructure is exploited to shut down political dissenters.

Those who are willing to endorse the creation of a massive, government-controlled surveillance infrastructure had better contemplate its risks head-on and honestly weigh them against its likely benefits. The outcome of that balancing act will depend on how much you trust the government to oversee an ambitious surveillance system without exploiting it to shore up its propaganda machine and silence its critics.

New Zealand wants to introduce age verification for all because social media causes negative body image in under-16s

Digital euro clears key hurdle

Digital euro clears key hurdle as EU seeks to break free from U.S. credit cards

Francesco Canepa and Valentina Za

The European Central Bank secured key parliamentary backing on Tuesday for the launch of a digital euro, an electronic means of payments aimed at making the euro zone less reliant on U.S. credit cards at a ‌time of fraying transatlantic relationships.

The digital euro, essentially an electronic wallet guaranteed by the central bank but marketed by banks or fintech companies, will allow all euro zone ‌residents to make payments online and in person.

Six years in the making, the ECB's digital cash has become a more pressing issue since Donald Trump returned to the White House, slapping tariffs on even established trade partners such as ​the European Union and raising fears that the U.S. could one day weaponize its dominance over payment networks like Visa and Mastercard.

The approval of draft rules by the economic committee of the European Parliament comes after three years of wrangling between the ECB and banks, which have been concerned about deposit outflows and lost revenues and sought to limit the scope of the project.

"The introduction of the digital euro would... reduce overreliance on non-European providers by becoming a pan-European means of payment and would bring the single currency into the digital era by giving Union citizens the freedom to opt to pay ‌with central bank money in their daily transactions," the draft regulation ⁠says.

FINAL APPROVAL BY YEAR-END?

Siegbert Frank Droese of the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations, a political group in the European Parliament, said his group had voted against the proposal, raising the likelihood that a further vote would be needed at the Parliament's plenary.

Barring an objection at the plenary, lawmakers should start negotiating ⁠with the European Council of EU governments and the European Commission next month, aiming for final approval by the end of the year.

The ECB, which plans to run a 12-month pilot of the digital euro starting in the second half of next year before a full launch in 2029, said it looked forward to Parliament adopting its final position.

Outside the euro area, China has been piloting a digital yuan at scale, ​while ​countries like India and Brazil have conducted trials. Britain has focused on research, amid concerns over privacy, financial ​stability and banking-sector impact, while U.S. President Trump has forbidden the Federal ‌Reserve from issuing a digital currency.

More...

Time to expose Erdogan

Time to expose Erdogan's true face

Nadav Shragai

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, US President Donald Trump's "very good friend," as the American president has described him, continues to host and provide refuge to Hamas mass murderers, who keep planning terrorism and attacks against us from Istanbul and Ankara. Yesterday, we learned that dozens more such attacks, which could have ended in major disasters and many casualties, were recently thwarted by Israel, fortunately.

On this matter, Erdogan is thumbing his nose not only at Israel but also at Trump. That is hardly surprising. Trump, after all, does not spare the Turkish president expressions of admiration and affection, just as he often lavishes strange expressions of admiration and friendship on other sworn enemies of the State of Israel.

Trump's "good friend," Erdogan, has during the years of the war managed to call directly for Israel's destruction (March 2025), define Israel as a "terror state" and "a threat to all humanity," compare us to Nazis and publicly wish for our annihilation. The Turkish megalomaniac even made clear that Israel's end was near, and that "the atomic bombs it possesses will not save it."

Unlike in the past, the Turkish president no longer bothers to deny the ties between his regime and the Hamas attack planners operating from his territory. And perhaps that is no wonder, when this is a man who was in contact before and after the massacre with the architects of Oct. 7; a man who expressed respect for the late Sunni religious authority Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a religious ruling permitting suicide attacks against Israelis; and a man who had close ties with Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Pakistan, who rejected the very legitimacy of Israel's existence. Erdogan also met with two of the most prominent subversives among Israel's Arab citizens against the very existence of the Jewish state, Sheikh Raed Salah and Kamal Khatib, leaders of the outlawed Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

Since Oct. 7, Erdogan has treated us as an enemy, and the obvious question is: Why do we not treat him as such? Why is someone who hosted, and still hosts, arch-terrorists on his soil, some of them deportees from the Shalit deal, who direct terrorism against us from there, still not formally defined in Israel as an enemy? Why is someone who turned Istanbul and Ankara into a home and safe haven for Hamas headquarters or offices, and into an oxygen pipeline for the economy of the Palestinian Nazi terrorist organization, still not considered our clear enemy?

Erdogan, in whose country the Israeli and US flags, and the portraits of Netanyahu and Trump, are burned in the streets, exactly as in Iran, defines Hamas terrorists as mujahideen, holy warriors, and admires the "martyrs" of the Palestinian Nazi terrorist organization. In his speeches, he notes the commitment to "defend Islam" and describes the need for an "alliance of Islamic states" to act against Israel as a "religious duty." Only recently, he prayed that "al-Qahhar," one of Allah's names, meaning "the destroyer" or "the subduer," would devastate and destroy Zionist Israel, "the one created by Satan."

Trump's America knows this reality well. Nevertheless, in Erdogan's case too, it struggles to internalize that hatred rooted for generations in religious fanaticism cannot be extinguished with firehoses of money, just as the DNA of Iran's Revolutionary Guards cannot be changed in the same way. We, unlike Trump, must behave and speak differently, and make sure the entire world knows who the real Erdogan is.

The Dark Spirituality Behind Disclosure Day

The Dark Spirituality Behind Disclosure Day

 Joe Hawkins

At first glance, Disclosure Day appears to be another science-fiction thriller centered on government secrecy, extraterrestrial life, and a world-changing revelation. Beneath the surface, however, the film functions as something far more significant. It serves as a fascinating case study in how modern entertainment continues to familiarize audiences with concepts that were once considered fringe, occult, or even spiritually dangerous.

Through themes of alien disclosure, psychic abilities, remote viewing, astral projection, channeling, and possession, Disclosure Day presents a worldview that feels increasingly common in contemporary media. A worldview that conditions viewers to reinterpret the supernatural through an extraterrestrial lens as opposed to a biblical lens.

Perhaps nowhere is this agenda more apparent than in the emotional scenes involving Daniel’s girlfriend, Jane Blankenship. After viewing evidence that the aliens are allegedly being tortured, Jane becomes deeply emotional. Her response reflects the film’s broader effort to shift audience sympathies toward the extraterrestrials. Rather than presenting them as potential deceivers, the narrative casts them as victims deserving compassion and understanding.

It is Jane who voices one of the film’s most important concerns, warning that people may begin viewing these beings as deities and stop believing in God. Ironically, while the film acknowledges this possibility, much of its narrative structure appears to move viewers toward exactly that conclusion.

While the government conspiracy drives the plot, the film’s most revealing elements emerge through the character of Margaret Fairchild. Following an encounter with a cardinal—one of several animal forms allegedly used by the extraterrestrials—Margaret begins displaying extraordinary abilities. She can read people’s thoughts, speak languages she has never learned, perceive information that should be impossible for her to know, and even appear to people as their loved ones.

This theme becomes even more apparent through the mysterious metallic devices featured throughout the movie. These artifacts grant users abilities including remote viewing, astral projection, cloaking, memory recovery, and even possession. The film presents these powers as advanced technology rather than occult practices. By presenting such experiences as scientifically explainable or technologically enabled, the film makes these abilities desirable, especially to a young person (in my opinion).

One of the most striking examples occurs during one of the remote viewing sequences. Users are able to project their consciousness beyond their physical location to observe another person and even question them about their whereabouts. However, the film establishes an unusual rule: remote viewers cannot “dive” on an “experiencer”—an individual who has been abducted and had direct contact with the alien entity. This distinction elevates the experiencers into a unique category of humanity, almost suggesting that contact with the alien transforms a person into something different. The implication is that these encounters create a spiritual or metaphysical barrier that ordinary consciousness cannot penetrate.

More...