CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

France accused Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of masterminding last month's cyberattack, which disrupted 700 of the country's 10,000 supermarkets and struck deep inside the country's food supply chain.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said earlier today in Paris that the IRGC's operation marked the first large-scale cyberattack aimed at sabotage on French territory. Speaking on the sidelines of the G7 ministerial meeting, he said France had summoned Iran's ambassador on the matter and was seeking sanctions against the group responsible. 

"This is the first large-scale cyberattack with an aim of sabotage on the national territory," Barrot said. "It hurts the nation's interests and the security of French citizens. We will take sanctions at the European level against all who are responsible" and "we will take any other proportionate and necessary measure to respond to this attack and dissuade those who would like to reproduce it."

Last month, the French finance minister told Parliament that the cyberattack on the country's supermarkets "touches the heart of our food security" and is a "wake-up call for everyone."

According to local outlet BFM-TV, hackers forced a continuous defrost cycle and set temperatures at 700 supermarkets as high as 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit).

"Targeting equipment essential to the preservation of fresh products is an attack on the French food supply chain. It is unprecedented, extremely serious, and unacceptable," Dominique Schelcher, CEO of French grocery chain Cooperative U, told AP News last month.

Related:

• US Warns Of Ongoing Cyber Threat To Industrial Freezers And Cold Storage

So a single cyberattack disrupted hundreds of French supermarkets, exposing the fragility of the country's food supply chain. Add mounting unrest by communist groups and a deepening debt crisis, and the failing Macron government faces a collision of crises as Marine Le Pen's odds surge on Polymarket ahead of next April's elections. 

Authored by Joanna Williams via Spiked,

Next time someone rattles a tin, and you reach for a couple of quid to help rough sleepers, starving donkeys or sick children, think twice. It's long been clear that major charities are run like businesses; less well known is that they receive vast sums of taxpayers' money. And while it might be understandable that big charities try to influence government policy to further their aims, some stretch this role to campaign on issues far removed from the cause they claim to support.

Take immigration. This week, home secretary Shabana Mahmood backed down on her plan to extend the amount of time immigrants must work in the care sector before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. By her own admission, this decision will cost the British public billions of pounds. So what brought about her u-turn? Mahmood was obviously under pressure to appease Labour left-wingers offended by the mere suggestion of border controls. Then there was the government's sham 'consultation', in which almost three-quarters of respondents were immigrants themselves. Alongside this came the voice of the charity sector.

In total, 560 charities either responded to the government's consultation or petitioned members of parliament. Two-thirds of them argued that not just care workers, but all migrants - including those who arrive in the UK illegally - should be allowed to settle in Britain permanently without having to meet any conditions. This would effectively leave the UK with open borders - a position that no party has ever dared put before the British public.

Some of these charities receive vast sums of taxpayer money. Collectively, 38 of the charities that responded to the government consultation received an astonishing £1 billion from taxpayer-funded contracts or grants in the last financial year. One charity that received almost £1million from the British government is Praxis, an organisation that supports migrants and refugees. It argues for all immigrants to be allowed to live permanently in the UK, with full access to our generous benefits system. In March, Praxis, along with other charities, helped bring more than 500 people to parliament to lobby around 100 MPs against proposals to tighten restrictions on who qualifies for indefinite leave to remain.

Of course, political activists are perfectly entitled to make a case for open borders. They should be free, like anyone else, to present their arguments to the public and win people over to their cause. Campaigning might mean lobbying politicians, and it will almost certainly require raising money. Fair enough. But charitable work and political activism should be quite distinct activities, especially when taxpayers' money is involved. Donors to migrant charities might think they are paying towards the cost of feeding and housing refugees from war-torn countries, not for political lobbying. Instead, they are contributing to a pot that includes public money, yet is used to fund campaigns the public does not support.

The law is clear: charities must work only to further their charitable purposes, and must not use taxpayer money for lobbying or political activity. But it seems that only a tenuous interest in migration or the care sector was enough to justify charities contributing to the government's consultation. Mencap, for example, helps people with learning disabilities. In the financial year ending March 2025, it received more than £200million from government contracts and grants. In the recent consultation, Mencap told government ministers they should 'retain the five-year pathway' to indefinite leave to remain for social-care workers. Likewise, Barnardo's, a charity supporting children growing up in poverty, received £192million in contracts and grants. It chimed in with the suggestion that it 'does not support the principles of earned settlement... as a basis for determining whether children can live safely and securely in the UK'.

The British public is being betrayed. Generous citizens might assume that the tenner they bung to someone raising money for Barnardo's will help children growing up in poverty, only to discover it is used to pay for people to lobby government ministers on a very different issue. And taxpayers who have repeatedly rejected mass migration at the ballot box find that their hard-earned income is being used to back precisely this cause.

Two clear winners emerge from this underhanded process. Directors of major charities earn huge salaries, often running well into six figures. Their pay packets let them espouse luxury beliefs, safe in the knowledge that their encounters with migrants are far more likely to be with a cheap nanny or cleaner than young men living next door in a house in multiple occupation. Politicians also win. Rather than being held accountable for their decisions, they can point to support from charities and lobbyists to justify their actions.

The fact that our money is being used to pay charity chief executives to tell government ministers what they want to hear is a gross betrayal of the British public. It's time the sector was brought into line.

Joanna Williams is a columnist at spiked. Her latest book, The Breaking of the Education Contract: Why We Need to Keep Politics Out of Schools, is available from Civitas. You can also follow Joanna on Substack.

President Trump has lately been making clear that while he wants to give more time for negotiations to develop, he still has major strike options on the table if he decides to review the war against Iran.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has on Monday revealed he sought to warn his American counterpart away from a new bombing campaign in a recent phone call.

"On the way back from Baku in Azerbaijan, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke to the press on the plane," Al Jazeera reports Monday. "Erdogan says he conveyed an anti-war message to US President Donald Trump."

"We emphasise at every opportunity that it is possible to resolve these issues through dialogue and diplomacy," Erdogan told reporters.

But he pointed to signs of another round of war in the region: "Unfortunately, we see a negative shift once again. We are doing our utmost to prevent this," the Turkish leader said.

“I told Mr. Trump about our reservations, we hope common sense prevails and the region will be saved from the brink of (disaster).”

"More clashes do not mean anything but more losses for our region. It is not only the warring sides paying the price. It affects everyone from Türkiye to the Gulf countries, from Iraq and Syria to Europe and Asia," he emphasized.

According to more via Al Jazeera: "The US side is saying these are not promising talks, and high-level delegations, including one led by the Qatari prime minister, are expected to speak to Trump."

And so, Erdogan had "also warned that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz affects not only Iran and other countries in the region, but also nations around the globe that are fighting inflation and facing many domestic problems."

Erdogan had said something similar back in September: "We, like the rest of the world, are feeling the inflationary effects of the Iran-centered crisis" - he had stated at the time.

Trump had on Sunday hinted at a big picture settlement possibly involving Russia and China's input:

"One of the meetings, I think, will be with President [Vladimir] Putin and President Xi [Jinping]. And that’ll be interesting," Trump told reporters in Florida on Sunday, in reference to the Asia-Pacific ?Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in China’s Shenzhen next week.

"We’ll talk a lot of things, including denuclearisation. But we’ll be talking a lot of things. We’re trying to end the war in Iran, and we’re doing well because, you know, all we have to do, we’re choking it off."

But by and large, Tehran appears to be sticking by adherence to its 'seven conditions' - among them sanctions relief, the removeal of US troops from the region, an end to the US naval blockade, and even the payment of war reparations.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called some of Iran's conditions "outrageous and ridiculous".

But Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded: "Is it unreasonable that Iran demands that US illegal sanctions and its naval blockade must be lifted before negotiations start and that the war should end on all fronts?" 

The Islamic Republic has also been denying that indirect negotiations will resolve the nuclear enrichment question. Tehran has indicated it is not willing to enter nuclear negotiations until after the war is ended.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Andrew Korybko's Newsletter,

The purpose in sharing this scenario forecast is to generate a discussion within Trump 2.0 and among experts in Russia, Iran, and China about the political feasibility of the proposed compromises aimed at stabilizing Eurasia and facilitating a MAGA comeback in 2028.

It was earlier assessed that "MAGA Can Only Be Saved By Trump Cutting Grand Deals With Russia, Iran, & China" that advance some of their most sensitive interests in order to reduce the risk of them from raising Americans' cost of living at MAGA's expense in 2028. Each compromise would have second-order consequences for their regions and could lead to more dealmaking by Trump to wrap up the loose ends that could derail his dream of a MAGA comeback. The resultant Eurasian Order will now be detailed.

Beginning with Russia as elaborated on here more at length, the US' compromises would be to withdraw most or all of its forces from post-1997 NATO members with the possible removal of its nuclear umbrella over them, though European NATO's forces might remain under an Anglo-Franco nuclear umbrella. The US would also obtain stakes in Russian pipelines and energy companies as "political safeguards" for the resumption of Russian exports to the EU to replace lost US imports that would be redirected back home.

As for Iran, the US would lift its energy-related sanctions, withdraw its forces from the Gulf (who'd be replaced by the Islamic NATO's), and commit to not intervene in Israel's support if Israel initiates another war with Iran. Wrapping everything up, the US would completely cut off Taiwan, thus leading to its return to the Mainland. If Trump has the political will to cut such grand deals, then there'd be second-order consequences for the South Caucasus, Yemen, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Northeast Asia.

Regarding the first, the US could commit to not exploit August 2025's "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity" (TRIPP) as a Turkish-led NATO military logistics corridor along Russia's southern periphery, thus eliminating the risk of a major war. The US' new mineral investments in Central Asia could also reach its shores via the Trans-Siberian Railway instead of TRIPP since that would take them directly to its West Coast tech hub instead of having to go across the Panama Canal or the Heartland.

Moving along to Yemen, the simplest solution is to recognize its redivision into two states, with no blockade or sanctions against the Houthi-controlled North after the restoration of its independence. Next, the Kashmir Conflict has been deadlocked for decades, so the US could propose recognizing the Line of Control as the formal border between India and Pakistan. One or both might refuse, however, but then the US could threaten to cut off military ties and/or impose more tariffs to get them to reconsider.

The "Asian Arc" stretching from Northeast to Southeast Asia could see Japan nuclearizing as a counterbalance to China and extending its umbrella over South Korea if the US withdraws a significant number of its forces from Northeast Asia. They could be redeployed to Southeast Asia to deter China from changing the maritime status quo (which might become formalized) in parallel with reaffirming the US' mutual defense obligations to the Philippines and possibly expanding them to Vietnam and others.

The Eurasian Order would be fundamentally transformed through this proposed revolution in US foreign policy, but to be absolutely clear, this piece is only a scenario forecast; it's not a prediction and shouldn't be misinterpreted or maliciously misportrayed as one. The purpose in sharing it is to generate a discussion within Trump 2.0 and among experts in Russia, Iran, and China about the political feasibility of the proposed compromises aimed at stabilizing Eurasia and facilitating a MAGA comeback in 2028.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Via The Cradle

The US State Department informed the Lebanese Embassy in Washington that its Detroit consul, Ibrahim Charara, was declared persona non grata and had 48 hours to leave the country, Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Sunday.

Citing Lebanese Foreign Ministry sources, the Saudi-owned newspaper reported that the US decision came in response to old social media posts attributed to Charara regarding the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut.

In October of that year, a truck bomb destroyed the US Marine barracks near Beirut International Airport in Lebanon, killing 241 US military personnel.

In 2021, the Lebanese consul described that attack by calling it an act of "heroic resistance" that ended the "American military occupation of Beirut with a single strike."

The attack has been attributed to a group known as the Islamic Jihad Organization, which received backing from Iran and later evolved into the Lebanese Shia resistance movement Hezbollah.

US Marines had been deployed to Beirut in 1982 as part of a multinational peacekeeping force during the Lebanese Civil War, following Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which killed some 20,000 Lebanese.

The State Department's decision followed a report published on November 2nd by the Washington Free Beacon that cited Charara's comments about the attack.

The news site also noted Charara's condemnation of the US occupation of Syria, stating that, "From the Marine barracks in Beirut to the Al-Tanf base ... we will reject the occupier and defeat him."

The report highlighted Charara's praise for the 2021 escape of six Palestinian prisoners from Israel's Gilboa Prison and noted that his cover profile on X features an image of a burning Israeli flag and a quotation from Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani.

Kanafani was one of the most influential Palestinian writers of the 20th century and a leading figure in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). He was assassinated by Israeli intelligence in Beirut in 1972 at age 36.

The controversy surrounding Charara emerged after he attended an Arab American political action committee event in Dearborn, Michigan, ahead of last week's mid-term elections. The event was also attended by Democratic Senate candidate Abdulrahman El-Sayed, who became the first Muslim ever elected to the US Senate.

In September 2025, late senator Lindsey Graham abruptly ended a meeting with Lebanese Army Commander Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington for security cooperation talks with senior US officials. Graham said that he quickly ended the meeting after Haykal declined to call Hezbollah a “terrorist organization.”

Graham, who passed away in July, was known as a staunch supporter of Israel and a backer of its wars of aggression in the region. Hezbollah is currently resisting Israel, which waged war on Lebanon for 66 days in the fall of 2024, and for another 111 days starting in March of 2026, killing thousands of Lebanese. 

Israeli forces continue to occupy some 7 percent of the country's territory. Last year, US envoy Tom Barrack said in an interview that Washington will support the Lebanese Army to initiate a civil war and to fight against Hezbollah.

The Lebanese army is ”a good organization; it's well-meaning, but it's not well-equipped," Barrack told The National in an interview. "Because who are they going to fight? We're gonna arm them so they can fight Israel? I don't think so. So, you're arming them so they can fight their own people. Hezbollah."

The White House is much too late in belateldy 'discovering' this talking point, but admin officials continue to say that it's time for Israel to stand on its own and begin purchasing weapons without relying on US financial assistance.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday stated, "Israel is now prosperous and rich enough to be able to be a sales country. They can buy weapons from us, but we no longer have to provide the financing."

Coming off Republicans getting clobbered in the midterms, and with Israel being increasinly unpopular among the American electorate, Rubio followed by adding that "it’s something the Israelis themselves have offered us."

When asked whether this could be something to take effect in 2027, Israel replied, "Well, that’s what the president said we’re going to do. So, ultimately, I think they could if they wanted to, yeah, absolutely.”

"On the question of financing, I think Israel has clearly graduated beyond that," he said, alluding to Israel being a wealthy enough nation.

Just before last week's midterm elections, President Trump had abruptly proposed ending nearly $4 billion in annual American assistance to Israel.

He floated this in acknowledgement that the Iran war angered most Americans, and that public opinion on Washington's historic and ongoing support to Israel has fallen precipitously.

But obviously it's all too little, too late - as Republicans have been punished at the polls. Many pundits who were once strong MAGA supporters have complained that Trump had effectively abandoned 'America First' principles. 

It really shouldn't surprise anyone at all that Trump was lying about cutting military aid to Israel by the end of the year https://t.co/l8ZVwuF9xk

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) November 9, 2026

They point out that many policies appear more 'Israel First' - ultimately at the expense of US taxpayers and future generations. 

Some have caught on, seeing the sudden shift in talking points on ending aid to Israel as but a ploy, and that it won't realistically happen.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has meanwhile on Monday highlighted in a post on X that Trump seemed to finally recognize widespread public dissatisfaction with Israel.

POTUS clearly recognizes that the vast majority of Americans are disgusted with Israel. Strikingly, he seems confused about why that's the case.

Americans are evidently sick and tired of Israel bamboozling US administrations into Forever Wars. They had enough. So has our region. pic.twitter.com/3vihdkqiP7

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) November 9, 2026

And also...

Araghchi said of Trump: "The vast majority of Americans are disgusted with Israel. Strikingly, he seems confused about why that's the case."

"They have had enough. So has our region," he added, and said that clearly the common American voter is sick of getting dragged into "forever wars" in the region.

A bloc of Senate Republicans led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is pushing to postpone Tuesday's GOP leadership elections, arguing that the conference needs time to examine its midterm election losses before it picks the leaders who will guide it in the minority.

Democrats won control of the Senate with 54 seats, and that total could climb depending on the outcomes of the races in Mississippi and Alaska. Republicans expect Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to seek another term as the chamber's top Republican when the conference votes Tuesday morning.

Johnson made his case in a letter to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who chairs the Senate Republican Conference, according to a copy Fox News Digital obtained. He asked that the election wait "until we all have a chance to hear from leadership candidates as to what type of collaborative conference governing model we should adopt and what our strategy will be to counter the emboldened Democrats."

"Tuesday's result was a stunning defeat, and there are multiple reasons for it," Johnson wrote. "We need to have serious discussions within our conference as to what we can do to improve the outcome in 2028."

He also said in the letter that the conference owed itself a full debate over how each candidate intends to run the conference.

"Holding leadership elections without engaging in a robust discussion and evaluation of how those running for leadership intend to lead would be political malpractice," Johnson wrote. "It is certainly not the way leadership elections should be conducted in the world's greatest deliberative body."

Under Senate GOP rules, the conference can take up a delay if the request carries five signatures. Johnson secured the names he needed from Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL), John Kennedy (R-LA), Ted Budd (R-NC), and Mike Lee (R-UT).

Sen. Ron Johnson has sent the letter to Senate Republican Conference Chairman Tom Cotton calling for leadership elections to be delayed until Senate Republicans meet as a conference to discuss their "stunning defeat" in the midterms.

The letter is signed by Johnson, Ted Budd,... pic.twitter.com/3YjJZve6mr

— Virginia Grace McKinnon (@virginiagmck) November 9, 2026

Lee announced his support on X.

Pennsylvania's @SenMcCormickPA is absolutely right:

No need to rush into Senate GOP leadership elections.

We first need to digest what happened last week and make plans to move forward. 

Turning to leadership elections Tuesday morning would put the cart before the horse. https://t.co/hhqdiCTGiA pic.twitter.com/SRxVfbFxxb

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) November 9, 2026

Two other Republicans, Sens. David McCormick (R-PA) and Jim Banks (R-IN), did not add their names to the letter. Both also want the conference to pause before it votes on leadership.

"Our conference needs to sit down and have a frank discussion about where we fell short, what we stand for, and what we're going to do for the working families who sent us here," Banks said in a statement.

Republican leadership had already scheduled a conference meeting ahead of the elections. A GOP aide told Fox News Digital that Thune owes part of his standing among colleagues to his willingness to take feedback from lawmakers rather than "rule with an iron fist."

Thune remains popular in the conference and faces no declared challenger even though some conservative figures outside the Senate have called on him to step aside. It remains unclear whether the effort to slow the vote will change who leads Senate Republicans. Several potential rivals, including Scott, have said they will not run against him.

Sen. Rick Scott addressed the question during an appearance on Fox News' Saturday in America.

"I don't want to run again. I've run twice," he said.

Asked whether he would back Thune, Scott did not commit.

"We'll see what happens. We'll see who else is going to run. I don't know if somebody else is going to run," he said.

Democratic leaders face unrest of their own. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are both contending with resistance inside their ranks as their party prepares to take the majority.

Jeffries is dealing with grassroots backlash from the activist left over his bid for speaker, even after Democrats won large House majorities in last Tuesday's election. Axios reported on Friday that a wave of calls and emails is pressing House Democrats and members-elect to keep the gavel from Jeffries, citing more than a dozen lawmakers and aides. The outlet also reported that the caucus remains almost certain to back him.

One incoming House Democrat said the office was "getting inundated," with "about 150" calls since the election asking for a vote against Jeffries. A senior House Democrat reported "over 500" calls in two days, and constituents raised the issue in person at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in that member's district.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, several newly elected Democrats have declined to commit to supporting Schumer for majority leader, though he has led the caucus since 2017. Senators-elect Adam Hamilton (D-KS), Troy Jackson (D-ME), Juliana Stratton (D-IL), Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI), and Peggy Flanagan (D-MN) have all voiced disapproval of him, and some pledged during their campaigns never to support him.

Senate Republicans plan to vote on their leaders Tuesday morning unless the conference grants Johnson's request for a delay.