SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
iran
Evidence of Epstein Ties to Mossad Grow, But Corporate Media Doesn't Seem to Care
There has been wall-to-wall US corporate media coverage of the Department of Justice’s Epstein files and the battle over its release. So why has new reporting about hacked materials largely been ignored by US corporate media?
Nov 15, 2025
For years, there have been whispers that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who had ties to key officials in the US and foreign governments, was involved with Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.
However, the Epstein/Mossad ties were often labeled by US corporate media as “unfounded” (New York Times, 8/24/25), dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” (New York Times, 7/16/25), or said to have been “largely manufactured by paranoiacs and attention seekers and credulous believers” (New York Times, 9/9/25). Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has claimed that “Epstein’s conduct, both the criminal and the merely despicable, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mossad or the State of Israel.”
It’s true that far-right antisemites like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have promoted a conspiratorial version of the Epstein/Israel connection as part of their bigoted, attention-seeking narratives. But recent investigations by Drop Site News—the nonprofit investigative outlet founded in July 2024—into a major hack targeting Israel revealed that Epstein did play a significant role in brokering multiple deals for Israeli intelligence. Despite the hack’s significant revelations, US corporate media coverage remains scant.
‘Knack for steering the superpowers’
Since 2024, a hacking group called “Handala” with reported ties to the Iranian government (Committee to Protect Journalists, 7/9/25) has carried out a series of cyberattacks targeting Israeli government officials and facilities (Press TV, 12/1/24; CyberDaily, 6/16/25).Aspects of the Handala hack were published on the website of nonprofit whistleblower Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), including hundreds of thousands of emails from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, one of Epstein’s closest connections.
Since the hacked information was released, numerous independent media outlets—including Reason (8/27/25), All-Source Intelligence (9/17/25, 9/29/25, 10/13/25), Grayzone (10/6/25, 10/9/25, 10/13/25), the (b)(7)(D) (10/16/25, 10/21/25) and DeClassified UK (9/1/25, 11/3/25)—have published investigations on its contents. Among the independent media outlets, Drop Site’s coverage stands out for its in-depth research and broad scope.
Drop Site’s investigations into the Handala hack have included six major stories since late September, four of which have centered around “Epstein’s work on behalf of Israeli military interests, particularly as it relates to his role in the development of Israel’s cyber warfare industry.”
Drop Site reporters Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim (9/28/25) detailed how Epstein wielded his influence to expand Israel’s cyber warfare industry into Mongolia. Drop Site wrote:
Jeffrey Epstein…exploited his network of political and financial elites to help Barak, and ultimately the Israeli government itself, to increase the penetration of Israel’s spy-tech firms into foreign countries.
In their next piece, Drop Site revealed (10/30/25) that Epstein created an Israel/Russia backchannel to attempt to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Hussain and Grim reported that Epstein also worked with Barak and Russian elites to pressure the Obama administration into approving strikes on Iran, demonstrating his “knack for steering the superpowers toward Israel’s interests by leveraging a social network that intersected the Israeli, American and Russian intelligence communities.”
In the same piece, Hussain and Grim quoted Epstein asking Barak to “wait until they could speak privately before Barak notified intelligence leaders of a deal” with Russian-Israeli oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, and to “not go to number 1 too quickly.” Number 1 has long been a nickname for the head of the Mossad, DropSite noted.
Another article (11/7/25) recounted that Epstein sold surveillance technology to Côte d’Ivoire: “Epstein helped Barak deliver a proposal for mass surveillance of Ivorian phone and internet communications, crafted by former Israeli intelligence officials.”
Most recently, Grim and Hussain (11/11/25) reported that an Israeli spy regularly stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment. The spy, Yoni Koren, “made his intelligence career working in covert operations alongside the Mossad.”
Failing to cover the Handala hack
Hacked information must be handled ethically by journalists—including by verifying the files, considering public interest, concealing identities when necessary, and noting its origins. This is what Drop Site has done. And its reporting has significant public interest, revealing the ways in which Epstein served Israel’s interests.
Yet in a search of ProQuest’s US Newsstream collection for “Handala,” as well as a supplementary Google search, the only US corporate media outlet found to have covered the Handala hack is the New York Post (8/31/25). Its single 700-word story, drawing from Reason (8/27/25) and the Times of London (8/30/25), focused on how Prince Andrew stayed in contact with Epstein for five years longer than previously stated—sidestepping the revelations from Drop Site about Epstein’s ties to Mossad.
Hussain, who had not seen the New York Post story, said US corporate media is “deliberately ignoring” the story:
It’s such a goldmine of stories. They’re not going through it, they don’t want to talk about it. I think it’s very difficult for them to conceive what these emails refer to because they’ve spent so much time talking about it as a conspiracy theory. And now contravening evidence is emerging, or well-substantiated evidence, showing that it’s really not a conspiracy theory.
Indeed, recent mentions of Epstein’s ties to Israeli government officials have continued to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, ignoring the hack and Drop Site‘s work. For instance, an LA Times op-ed (10/10/25) on antisemitism in the GOP listed Tucker Carlson’s suggestion that “Epstein was a Mossad agent” (and accusing Israel of “genocide” in Gaza) as evidence of “appalling behavior,” alongside things like “entertaining Hitler/Nazi apologia” and suggesting that “Jews had something to do with [Charlie] Kirk’s death.”
The New Yorker’s Jay Caspian Kang (10/10/25) asserted in his weekly column:
On Planet Epstein, everything that happens—the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the war in Gaza, the suppression of speech by the Trump Administration—proves the country is run by blackmail, pedophilia and fealty to Israel.
While it is of course absurd to blame “everything” on Epstein or Israel—and right-wing conspiracy theories that incorporate antisemitism are very real and dangerous—is it really unreasonable to blame “the war in Gaza” on too much “fealty to Israel”? After all, from October 7, 2023 to September 2025, the US sent $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project—more than a quarter of Israel’s total post–October 7 military expenditures. Epstein’s evident connections to Mossad do raise the question of whether there is more to that “fealty” than the $100 million the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent on both parties during the 2024 election cycle (Common Dreams, 8/28/24).
By using the “conspiracy theory” frame, Kang not only overlooked the recently revealed files from Drop Site, but also failed to convey the full scope of Epstein’s influence, leaving the actions of associates and key government officials unscrutinized.
Other Handala revelations
Other aspects of the Handala hack have also been well-covered by independent media, including reports of billionaires funding an Israeli cyber campaign against anti-apartheid activists (All-Source Intelligence, 9/17/25). Other stories describe Iran striking a secret Israeli military site near a Tel Aviv tower (All-Source Intelligence, 10/13/25; Grayzone, 10/13/25), and Larry Ellison’s son, David Ellison, meeting with a top Israeli general to plan spying on Americans (Grayzone, 10/6/25). The Grayzone (10/9/25) also reported that a former US ambassador secretly worked with a top Israeli diplomat to help Israel access several prestigious UN committees.
In Israeli media, Haaretz (3/9/25) reported that thousands of Israeli gun owners were exposed in an Iranian hack-and-leak operation. The paper (7/9/25) also revealed the leak of a database containing thousands of résumés belonging to Israelis who served in classified and sensitive positions within the Israel Defense Forces and other military and security agencies.
These details, like those about Epstein, have also been met with silence in US corporate media.
There has been wall-to-wall US corporate media coverage of the Department of Justice’s Epstein files and the battle over its release. So why has the hack largely been ignored by US corporate media? One possible reason is the hack’s likely origin. It has been reportedly attributed to Banished Kitten, a cyber unit within Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence (Committee to Protect Journalists, 7/9/25). Hacks purportedly emanating from Iran are rarely covered in US corporate media—and when they are, the origin of the hack, not its content, becomes the focus.
Look no further than media coverage of the 271-page official dossier of then–Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance, which revealed that the Trump campaign believed Vance “embraced noninterventionism,” among other purported vulnerabilities (Ken Klippenstein, 9/26/24). The US government alleged the Vance dossier was leaked through Iranian hacking (FAIR.org, 9/30/24). While the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico possessed the Vance dossier for weeks, they declined to publish it (Popular Information, 9/9/24).
The contents of the Vance dossier were eventually revealed by independent reporter Ken Klippenstein, as well-documented by FAIR contributor Ari Paul (9/30/24). Paul noted that while Klippenstein’s reporting pushed the story into the legacy media, “most of the reporting about this dossier has been on the intrigue revolving around Iranian hacking rather than the content itself” (Daily Beast, 8/10/24; Politico, 8/10/24; Forbes, 8/11/24).
Today, despite Drop Site‘s thorough and revealing reporting, the Handala hack has been almost completely ignored by US corporate media. Said Drop Site‘s Hussain:
A lot of these [media] organizations, it’s kind of not a secret, they have sympathies or ties to Israel, so it’s not a story which is appealing to them, it’s not politically convenient for these organizations, for the most part.
I think when something’s in the public interest, you report on it, and you’re transparent about where it came from. But in this case, [US corporate] media chose not to.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Snapback Sanctions on Iran Can't Be Allowed to Make Another War Inevitable
Despite the nascent peace in Gaza, it appears the stage is being set for renewed belligerence in the Middle East, unless the US can restrain Israel.
Oct 10, 2025
After two years of Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, a ceasefire deal has officially been signed. President Donald Trump previously revealed his 20-point peace plan to end the conflict and, while it is not immediately clear if the plan will be implemented in its entirety, it seems that an initial phase is currently underway. Captives from both sides will be exchanged, and Israel will partially withdraw from Gaza.
As the war in Gaza hopefully draws to an end, an embattled Iran is now facing the reimposition of United Nations “snapback” sanctions that will wreak havoc on its oil trade, reinstate an arms embargo, and prohibit all uranium enrichment. Previously, the Iranian parliament was set to deliberate on a resolution to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a response to the sanctions being implemented. With sanctions now in effect, Iranian withdrawal from the NPT might be interpreted as a move toward nuclear weaponization and amplify Israeli and American calls for regime change. Despite the nascent peace in Gaza, it appears the stage is being set for renewed belligerence in the Middle East. Accordingly, the US must definitively restrain Israel to disentangle from a region where involvement has not provided any tangible benefits.
After the Iran-Israel War, Iran preconditioned resuming diplomacy on a good faith guarantee from the US that they would not be attacked while negotiating. From the Iranian perspective, it is evident that the US is unable to ensure Iran’s safety amid renewed nuclear negotiations. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has conducted offensive operations in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Qatar. Israel’s unilateral bombing of Qatar, a US ally which hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East, represents a dangerous and unprecedented escalation. Qatar plays the role of a de facto regional mediator, and Israel’s brazen strike targeted Hamas representatives in Doha who were discussing President Trump’s ceasefire proposal to end the war in Gaza.
This is a glaring instantiation of the fact that the US is either unwilling or unable to restrain Israel. If US support for Israel remains unconditional despite bombing the mediator country in peace negotiations, which voices will be elevated in Tehran: the moderates open to resuming diplomacy or the hardliners asserting that the US cannot be trusted? Iran’s suspicions are reflected in Ayatollah Khamenei’s assertion that negotiations with the US would not serve Iran’s interests.
It is becoming impossible to ignore that Israeli and American interests are separate and distinct: Israel wants regional hegemony, while the US’ interests lie in diplomacy.
Moreover, the underlying strategic considerations remain relatively unchanged after the war in June. The US was unable to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, Israel failed to spur regime change, and Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is believed to have survived US strikes. While reattempting nuclear diplomacy is preferable to renewed hostilities, diplomatic efforts have reached an irreconcilable impasse. Israel and the US remain committed to imposing a policy of zero uranium enrichment on Iran while Iran remains steadfast on retaining their enrichment capability. Although President Trump proclaimed that Iran’s nuclear sites were totally "obliterated,” assessments from the US, Israel, Iran, and the International Atomic Energy Agency appear to contradict his rosy estimation. Subsequently, Israel reportedly is planning for additional strikes if Iran resumes enrichment and President Trump has asserted that he would be open to striking Iran again “without question” if enrichment continues. Why would Iran agree to suspend uranium enrichment and forfeit nuclear latency when their existential fears were reinforced by surprise bombings amid diplomatic talks?
The inconvenient truth is that Israel hopes to seize this unique opportunity to coordinate with the US to change the Middle East. Concerning Gaza, the expulsion of the Palestinian population and opposition to Palestinian statehood enjoy a national consensus that transcends partisan lines in Israeli society. Since the Gaza war began in 2023, the human cost has been enormous—Israel has killed over 67,000 Palestinians, an estimated 20,000 of which are children; starvation is rampant; and nearly all of Gaza’s educational and medical infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed. Similarly, Israel’s primary strategic objective in Iran is regime change wherein Iran shares a fate similar to Iraq and Syria: a fracturing along ethnic and religious lines into smaller, manageable entities that pose no threat to Israel.
Realistically, Israel needs to drag the US into further hostilities with Iran due to Israel’s inability to adequately defend itself without US augmentation. Indeed, in the past two years alone, the US spent tens of billions on military aid to Israel. This figure pales in comparison with the fact that Israel has been the leading recipient of US aid for decades. Additionally, the war with Iran in June exposed glaring capacity insufficiencies with Israel’s missile defense systems and the US accounted for “almost half of all interceptions.” The US reportedly burned through about 25% of its THAAD missile interceptors defending Israel from Iranian retaliations. Israel could not execute their expansive agenda without unconditional, absolute, and unlimited guarantees from the US. Bewilderingly, the US continues to underwrite Israel’s ambitious foreign policy contrary to the US national interest. The US must first acknowledge this bizarre dynamic to ultimately divorce itself from it.
At the genesis of President Trump’s second term, he claimed the success of his administration would be measured “not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” Why Israel is allowed to continually derail the US’ “no new wars” agenda without fear of consequence defies credulity. It is becoming impossible to ignore that Israeli and American interests are separate and distinct: Israel wants regional hegemony, while the US’ interests lie in diplomacy.
If the Iranian regime is toppled, Israel will have achieved their goal of changing the strategic landscape of the Middle East. As the sole regional nuclear power with a sophisticated intelligence apparatus, unconditional US support, and no local competitors posing a threat, Israel will have ascended to the uncontested hegemon of a region that encompasses vital continental trade crossroads between Asia, Europe, and Africa. With diplomacy seemingly buried, the US must restrain their “greatest friend.” Facilitating regime change in Iran serves Israel, but leaves the US vulnerable to retaliations, blowback terrorism, or managing regional destabilization due to an ensuing refugee crisis. If there is to be a second Iran-Israel War, the US should make it clear that Israel will have to go it alone.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular