Latest news with #CIA
Axios
4 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
Axios Event: Industry and government leaders map out the new rules of power in global trade
WASHINGTON – Trade wars, AI disruption and rising tariffs are redrawing the global power map with ripple effects across defense, health care and beyond, top leaders said at an Axios event on May 21. The event was sponsored by Exiger. Why it matters: As uncertainty looms over the economy and international trade relations, companies and policy leaders are looking to see how the new rules of power will play out. Here's what was said: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing President Trump "like a fiddle" days after a two-hour call ended with no ceasefire. Also, Shaheen, who worked with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on foreign assistance programs during his time in the Senate, said she "would like to see that Marco Rubio back." CIA deputy director Michael Ellis said the CIA needs to fix its tools and techniques, which date to the 1960s and '70s. "A lot of them need to be updated and refreshed to confront the technological challenges of today." Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Trump's " gold card" website, which allows people to buy U.S. permanent residency for $5 million, will launch within a week. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the tariffs haven't affected the company so far, but it's "really important to us that this gets worked out." U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said artificial intelligence can unlock "a ton of value" and help "transform the business side of the Army." Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) chair of the House select panel on China, said that country is "not a friendly nation," and America doesn't "want to completely decouple, but at the same time we need to be strategic and have our supply chains." Content from the sponsored segments: In View From the Top conversations, Exiger CEO Brandon Daniels said deep innovation and "scaling disruption" are the ways for the West to win the trade war.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Joe Rogan left stunned by wild CIA plot that killed civilians and framed communists in propaganda campaign
Joe Rogan was left speechless after learning of a shocking CIA plot that intentionally killed over 100 civilians, all in an effort to smear communism. Host of The Why Files, AJ Gentile, revealed during a May 27 episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that US intelligence agents worked to frame the Soviet Union for a series of deadly car bomb attacks after World War II. The information, which Gentile said he feared to make public, was all part of a plot called Operation Gladio. Gladio is believed to have begun shortly after the end of the war in 1947 or 1948, but the operation allegedly kept going until at least 1990, when the Italian government revealed its existence to the world. According to Gentile, approximately 110 civilians throughout Italy were killed between the 1960s and 1980s in a scheme designed to create opposition against communist Russia in case they ever invaded Europe. 'Operation Gladio was a crazy one,' Gentile said. 'They trained a secret army, a civilian army in Italy to bomb civilians and then blame it on the communists.' Gentile noted that the Communist Party was already the most popular political group in Italy, which US spies were attempting to sabotage as Cold War tensions escalated. Ironically, however, the podcast host then revealed that the US intelligence community was training these guerrilla fighters with the help of a Nazi general. These bombings included at least two confirmed car explosions in 1969 and 1972. Those attacks killed 20 people and injured nearly 100. Two more car bombings were set off in 1974 and 1980, including an attack at the Bologna Centrale Railway Station which killed 85 people and wounded 200. Although investigations into the later bombings could not find definitive proof that they were a part of the CIA plot, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti declared both attacks to be the work of right-wing terrorists with ties to Operation Gladio in 1990. 'Civilians were killed in bombings by the CIA-trained guerrilla army, and they were trained by a Nazi general who was tight with Allen Dulles,' Gentile explained. According to declassified CIA documents, the Nazi general he referenced was Reinhard Gehlen, a German spy who served as the head of Nazi military intelligence during World War II. Gehlen was recruited by the US Army and the CIA to form his own spy organization in Europe that ended up being the precursor to West Germany's intelligence agency during the Cold War. This organization employed former Nazis and anti-communists to conduct spy operations against the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Gehlen's ally Allen Dulles was a pivotal US intelligence official who served as the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from 1953 to 1961. He was also the first civilian head of the CIA and was closely tied to Operation Gladio. According to Gentile, the two men coordinated with NATO and European intelligence services to establish 'stay-behind' networks across Western Europe after the war. These groups would work to undermine communist influence following World War II, keeping the Soviet Union from spreading further into Europe. Gentile noted that the plan to work with former Nazis actually began during World War II, not after. 'This was planned during the war - you know, while American GIs were being killed fighting the Nazis, they were already planning for this next phase,' Gentile added. However, when Rogan asked the podcast host which secret CIA schemes 'freaked you out,' Gentile specifically mentioned the US government's decision to kill civilians as part of a propaganda campaign. Rogan then asked if the Why Files host ever hesitates to talk about government cover-up on his show. Without even pausing, Gentile replied: 'Yes. Yes.' Rogan followed up by suggesting: 'Because they're dangerous?' which Gentile confirmed: 'They are.' In the case of Operation Gladio, the details are truly shocking, with Gentile calling the secret mission in Italy 'a massacre.' Dulles endorsed a so-called 'strategy of tension,' a controversial tactic his operatives carried out false-flag attacks, bombings on allied targets that are made to look like an enemy nation was responsible. Operation Gladio wasn't the only sinister CIA plan devised during the Cold War. Rogan and his guest also discussed an infamous plot to invade Cuba using the faked sinking of a US Navy vessel as the justification. Code-named Operation Northwoods, this top-secret plot also proposed enacting terrorism attacks on US cities before blaming Cuba in order to fool the American public into supporting war efforts to oust communist leader Fidel Castro. Gentile then ominously noted that President John F Kennedy's decision to stop Operation Northwoods was 'the beginning of the end' for his presidency. 'That was where Kennedy says we need to start again,' Gentile said, referring to the belief that JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA before his assassination in 1963. The podcast also mentioned that JFK had received clear warnings from his predecessor, President Eisenhower, who famously cautioned the public to 'beware of the military-industrial complex.' 'He talked to Eisenhower a lot, and Eisenhower gave him advice and said, watch out for the CIA. Keep an eye on them,' Gentile revealed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The CIA Created a Fake STAR WARS Fan Site As Cover for a Spy Network in the 2000s
Spies and spy networks are no strangers to the Star Wars galaxy. Andor was all about that, and we've had references to 'rebel spies' as far back as the original trilogy. But did you know that Star Wars was used as a cover for actual real-world spies by the CIA? We learned via 404 Media that security researcher Ciro Santilli discovered that, back in the mid-to-late-2000s, the CIA created a fake Star Wars fan site. A Star Wars site they secretly used to communicate with informants in other countries. The name of this particular site was If you click on that link now, it takes you directly to the official CIA website. So we'd say his research was accurate. Of course, the site is long gone, but screenshots exist of it. And it is very much a time capsule of that era of the internet. The agents who designed it sure did their Star Wars homework. The screenshot shows a little boy in Jedi robes, with links to several Star Wars websites. Interestingly, many of those sites still exist today. There are some images of animated Clone Wars-era Yoda, which means the CIA was using this fake Star Wars site at least until 2010, not long after the show debuted on Cartoon Network. Here's where things get dark, however. Aside from this one Star Wars site, there were other pop culture and gaming websites used by the CIA in this manner. Eventually, Iranian authorities discovered these sites, and we now know of their link to the killing of several CIA sources in China, circa 2010-2012. Which is about the time that went away. Luckily, thanks to sites like the Wayback Machine, we have evidence of its existence. In Return of the Jedi, Mon Mothma sadly says 'Many Bothans died to bring us this information,' in a reference to her spy network. In reality, it seems many actual spies died using Star Wars as a cover. It's a truly tragic example of 'Art imitates life, life imitates art.'
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CIA sounds alarm over China's tech rise
US paranoia with China undermines global stability as America seeks to maintain unipolar world The drums of a technological Cold War are growing deafening, with the CIA leading the chorus of alarm over China's 'existential threat' to American supremacy – even as experts warn that Washington's containment gambit is stirring the pot in Asia, and Pakistan's recent strikingly successful deployment of Chinese arms fuels long-simmering anxieties about Beijing's rising prowess. In an interview with Axios, CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis laid the cards bare. Unlike the Soviet Union, China's challenge to the United States unfolds primarily along economic, technological and ideological lines, precisely the domains where America once claimed undisputed hegemony. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, semiconductors and energy storage, these, he said, are the battlegrounds of the 21st century. However, experts warn that his worry, however, says more about American vulnerability than Chinese aggression. A European source— a long-time interlocutor between Brussels and Beijing—told The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity that the so-called 'China threat' was, in essence, the fear that Chinese innovation and standards could undermine American might. The source characterised remarks by Ellis and other US officials as provocative and dangerous, reflecting Washington's growing anxiety over China's technological ascent. He noted that the unease surrounding not just China's technological rise but also its growing military prowess has been building for years. That, he added, was also 'proved' by Pakistan's military after it effectively validated those concerns by deploying Chinese J-10C fighter jets and PL-15 missiles in the May War with India, marking the first real-time combat use of cutting-edge Chinese hardware. For Western observers, it was a stark wake-up call. The source said even as the CIA expands its 'elite workforce' of engineers and scientists, Donald Trump has gutted the National Security Council's China team, reportedly firing or sidelining nearly all of its members, save Ivan Kanapathy. However, experts say the descent into anti-China hysteria is not new. Trump's pick for CIA Director had already declared in January that the agency must become more 'aggressive' in its covert actions and human intelligence. The man who would soon direct the CIA said plainly: 'We will conduct covert actions at the direction of the president, going places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do.' The ambition came into sharp relief on May 1, when the CIA posted two Mandarin-language recruitment videos on social media, offering disillusioned Chinese government employees an 'exit plan'. Beijing responded swiftly. 'A naked political provocation,' the Ministry of Foreign Affairs retorted. Meanwhile, even as Washington accuses China of cyber-espionage and intellectual theft, it openly solicits espionage within Chinese institutions. Ironically, while the US tries to spy on China, it remains terrified that others are spying on it. Beijing, for its part, appears to be shoring up its internal defences. China's Ministry of State Security recently warned former state employees with access to sensitive information against leaking secrets, citing a case in which an ex-employee, lured by a foreign agency, was sentenced for espionage. 'Containment strategy' Einar Tangen, Senior Fellow of the Taihe Institute and Chair of Asia Narratives Substack, told The Express Tribune, the US frames China as a security threat due to its military, technological, and economic rise. 'This rhetoric, fuelled by competition in trade and technology, is used to support a containment strategy.' "The US exaggerates China's rise to justify containment rather than reflect on its own mistakes,' he pointed out. "Calling China a 'threat' is 'red meat' for US politicians." Tangen noted that America believed stirring up problems in and around China would aid America, but it only destabilises and adds to the uncertainty that is hurting the world. "Competition shouldn't overshadow the need for global cooperation,' he stressed. China's growth in tech and manufacturing increases yuan usage in global trade, potentially reducing the dollar's dominance. 'China's innovation serves global demand, it is not aimed at undermining the USD, that is being done by Washington through ham-handed bully tactics. China's digital advances are boosting global growth. It's what America should be doing rather than trying to resurrect its hegemony." "The dollar weakened due to US economic choices, and it's time for America to review those choices and start competing rather than complaining,' he added. Interference in Asia via alliances Regarding the Pakistan-India conflict, Wang Yiwei, a professor at the School of International Relations at Renmin University of China, pointed the finger at the United States, drawing a line from US Vice President JD Vance's visit to India to the deadly Pahalgam attack and subsequent Indian aggression against Pakistan. 'Everyone knows the US needs India to stir trouble near China's borders, particularly involving China and Pakistan as part of its strategy to balance policies, influence and peace in South Asia,' he said. He added that the American strategy appears to be losing steam in the region. Weighing in on regional tensions and US involvement, Einar Tangen said India was balancing security concerns about China with its economic ties. While US interference has created friction, it hasn't permanently damaged relations. He clarified that India's independence isn't a threat to China, but it is to the U.S, which frames the world in terms of 'you're either with us or against us'. "China and India as neighbours must prioritise dialogue to create stability." "Western interference worsens regional tensions." He warned Western military alliances were disrupting Asia, with only a perceived, not a real, benefit to Washington. 'A lesson that should have been learned from America's policies and actions in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia." The scholar further cautioned that India's partnerships with the US risked increasing regional tensions, shifting the power balance, and sparking proxy conflicts. "India-US military ties will only escalate regional instability." "Balanced relations, not alliances, ensure peace,' he emphasised. He stressed that China and India should focus on trade, not conflict. "QUAD and AUKUS provoke tensions instead of cooperation." Key differences However, to portray the unfolding rivalry merely as a security standoff would be to miss the deeper currents. As economist and Marxist thinker David Harvey has argued, US capitalism thrives on the chaos of the market, whereas China's strength lies in state-led investment and long-term planning. It is precisely this divergence that makes the contest so asymmetrical. According to Professor Wang, the United States has always been a political system dominated by private capital. The so-called "China threat" is essentially a threat posed by China to America's dominance in high technology and in setting global standards. 'It [US] has effectively colonised its allies and digital systems like Swiss online infrastructure, creating what can be called digital colonies. While claiming to provide global public goods, the US has simultaneously hijacked the international currency order.' Scholars argue that America's current dilemma is largely self-inflicted. Through decades of deindustrialisation, market fundamentalism and Wall Street-first policies, the US hollowed out its own manufacturing core. China, by contrast, pursued a sui generis path: merging Marxist-Leninist party control with market dynamics and rigorous industrial policy. The result is what some call 'techno-industrial sovereignty', a model that Washington cannot replicate without abandoning its ideological dogmas. 'The US prioritises private capital and a market-driven economy, while China focuses on state-led development and long-term planning. The US maintains a strong dollar to finance debt and benefit Wall Street, making manufacturing less competitive,' Tangen explained. The US, he noted, chased short-term profits, while China invested in long-term benefits. 'China continues to focus on the high-margin digital economy, while the US focuses on low-margin capital-intensive reindustrialisation.' "America's strong dollar was an own goal that eviscerated its manufacturing competitiveness so Washington could borrow cheaply and Wall Street could grow exponentially." "China's planning fuels economic and tech growth. Trump's does the opposite,' the scholar pointed out, adding that Trump's tariff plan was also flawed as it taxed consumers and, if successful, would reduce tariff collections. Observers have long noted that while America's elite chased short-term profits, China treated AI, green energy, and quantum computing as national priorities, funding them accordingly. If the last Cold War was about nukes and proxies, the new one is about who sets the rules for 5G, EVs, and digital currencies. Right now, Beijing is taking the lead. The moment calls for nuance over paranoia.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Iran deal déjà vu: Netanyahu plays familiar role, Trump a surprising one
In the unfolding drama of US–Iran diplomacy, Israel again plays the role of anxious bystander. If all the current noise over Iran's nuclear program sounds familiar – the US-Iran negotiations, reports of Israeli military preparedness, the friction between Washington and Jerusalem – that's because it is. An American president pursues diplomacy with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fumes – sometimes publicly, other times privately – and threatens military action. And the two allies, despite shared strategic interests and rhetorical pledges of unbreakable bonds, drift toward a familiar point of open disagreement over how best to confront a common threat. In the unfolding drama of US-Iran diplomacy, Israel again plays the role of anxious bystander, viewed by some as the actor that could gum up the works but determined, or so it says, not to stand by while a dangerous deal is signed. It happened under Barack Obama. It's happening again under Donald Trump, a president Netanyahu only weeks ago called 'a remarkable friend of the State of Israel,' but now finds himself at odds with, over what the premier sees as his defining legacy issue: preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The core of the dispute is unchanged: Netanyahu's conviction that any deal with Iran that leaves its nuclear infrastructure intact is a dangerous illusion, one that poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. Whether the American president is named Obama or Trump, Netanyahu's deep skepticism endures, and so does the strategy that flows from it: confrontation, pressure, and the credible threat of military action. Back in 2012, according to a book by journalist Ronen Bergman, Netanyahu's repeated warnings of an imminent Israeli strike, coupled with covert operations and visible military drills, rattled the Obama administration into entering secret negotiations with Iran, fearing an Israeli move might spark a regional war. According to this telling, Netanyahu hoped his threats would stop a flawed deal; instead, they helped accelerate one. Fast-forward to 2025. The negotiations are back, so are Israel's deep misgivings and threats of military action. Various reports this week suggest Israel is again prepared to strike if diplomacy fails — or even if it succeeds, but yields an agreement Jerusalem deems inadequate. Trump, asked Wednesday whether he warned Netanyahu during a phone call last week not to upend the negotiations with a preemptive military strike, responded: 'Yes I did.' Nevertheless, Mossad chief David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer were in Washington this week for meetings with Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and CIA head John Ratcliffe, underscoring Israel's concerns, as once again the US is pursuing diplomacy at a time when Israel believes heavy pressure – and the real possibility of military pressure – should be applied. The script is the same, but this time it's Trump, not Obama, urging restraint. While that shift changes the dynamics – Netanyahu isn't rallying Congress against a sitting president, as he did in 2015 – it does not change the fundamental tension. Trump's approach to Iran has always been transactional. He scrapped the Iranian nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018, reinstated sweeping sanctions, and called the deal a disaster. But now, in his second term, Trump sees an opportunity to claim a win: a deal tougher, smarter, and more effective than Obama's. Netanyahu, however, sees something different: a strategic opportunity to finish the job. Iran is reeling: its economy battered, its air defenses degraded, and its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria decimated. Israeli officials believe pressure, if sustained, could force Iran into dismantling its nuclear infrastructure as Libya once did. And if not, then now, they argue, is the moment to act militarily. That's the heart of the clash. Trump, despite his previous bashing of the deal Obama brokered, wants to avoid a military engagement. In phone calls and high-level meetings, the message to Jerusalem has been consistent: Give diplomacy a chance, stay in sync with Washington, and don't act unilaterally. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, during a visit to Jerusalem this week, delivered that message, telling Fox she was very 'candid and direct' regarding what the US expected – diplomatic jargon for a tough conversation. Trump has said the 'other option' remains on the table. But he's made it clear: He wants a deal, and he wants Netanyahu on board, or at least not a hurdle in the way. Netanyahu views any agreement that allows Iran to enrich uranium – even at low levels – as a future gateway, not a barrier, to weapons-grade capability. He fears Iran is buying time, using talks to relieve pressure while continuing its nuclear work. There's also concern that the US will accept an interim deal that leaves uranium stockpiles inside Iran and key facilities untouched, a framework eerily similar to the one reached in 2013 that led to the JCPOA. Of course, there are key differences between now and then, the most important one being the changing regional landscape. When Obama struck the JCPOA, Iran's regional presence was expanding, and its footprint was growing. Now, thanks to Israel's battering of Iran's proxies since October 7, that footprint is shrinking, and the Islamic Republic is arguably at its most vulnerable point since its 1979 founding. For Israel, this is a rare opportunity to strike. Trump sees the same vulnerability but draws a different conclusion. For him, Iran's weakness is leverage he can use in negotiating a 'really great' deal. Whether the two leaders can bridge that gap is unclear. US officials worry Netanyahu might move unilaterally. Israeli officials fear Trump might settle for a deal that leaves the core threats in place. And hovering over it all is a familiar refrain: Netanyahu's deep, abiding distrust – not only of Iran but of Washington's judgment when it comes to Tehran, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
