Tag: iran

In the shadow of Minab: Inside the US testing of ‘new missiles’ on Iran’s Lamerd

In Lamerd, in Iran’s southern Fars province, the threat of war gave way to reality when previously untested missiles struck a school, sports grounds and nearby neighbourhoods.

The attack came just six hours after the double-tap strikes on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab on 28 February, over 400km away in Hormozgan province, where 120 children, 24 staff, seven parents, a school bus driver and a pharmacist were killed.

Four missiles from a new weapon system, the Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which had never before been seen or deployed, would be field-tested on the town of 30,000 people.

At 5.11pm (1.41pm GMT), the missiles struck a residential area where a row of homes adjoined a few neighbourhood shops.

Rounia Fakori, 12, was at volleyball practice when the first explosion shook the school building.

“We were in our practice when we heard the first impact. We rushed to the door,” she recalled.

Then another missile struck, plunging the girls and their coaches into darkness as smoke and heat filled the sports hall. The force of the blast slammed the doors shut.

“We couldn’t see anything,” the girls’ volleyball coach, Rahimeh Shehabi, told Middle East Eye. “We could only hear the screams of the children.”

As the missiles struck the school and sports hall, a football game was underway outside.

Eleven-year-old Mahdiar was playing with his friends, including 12-year-olds Ilya Khatami and Abdulmosavar Rahmani, when explosive shrapnel tore through the area.

According to Mahdiar, he and one of his friends ran towards the canopy, where their football coach, Mahmoud Najafi, called out: “Come here quickly, it’s dangerous there.”

Ilya and his coach then rushed towards the building to help open the door for the girls and women trapped inside as a fourth missile struck, rattling the sports hall.

Keep reading

The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has every right to condition European relations with any other country or bloc on respect for human rights. That, of course, would hold true if she genuinely cared about such values herself.

In response to the June 19 signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran – intended to bring an end to a destructive war – von der Leyen declared that the European Union does not intend to lift its sanctions on Tehran.

Speaking on June 15, ahead of the G7 summit, she firmly conditioned any diplomatic thawing on domestic changes within the Islamic Republic.

“The principle of sanctions is that we need real change on the ground before we can think about lifting them,” she stated, adding: “As long as there is no behavioral change, you cannot lift the sanctions because of human rights violations.”

Viewed in isolation, the European position might appear principled, even commendable. In its broader geopolitical context, however, it exposes a staggering level of hypocrisy.

On that very same day, the European Union’s duplicity was laid bare. During a Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, Europe effectively refused to take a unified stand on imposing trade sanctions on Israel, despite its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip and unchecked colonial violence and expansionist policies in the occupied West Bank.

The discussion itself would not have taken place had it not been for the persistent efforts of Spain and Ireland, which have repeatedly urged the bloc to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement over Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. The initiative failed because the EU remains deeply divided, constrained by the requirement of unanimity on foreign policy and repeatedly blocked by pro-Israel governments.

While Europe continues to engage Israel – providing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition with desperately needed political and economic lifelines – the European public has increasingly moved in the opposite direction.

Recent polling across numerous countries has revealed growing opposition to Israel’s war and genocide in Gaza and increasing support for Palestinian rights. Across Europe, mass demonstrations, consumer boycotts, campus mobilizations, and divestment campaigns have reflected a widening gap between public opinion and official policy.

This reality appears entirely irrelevant to von der Leyen, who remains preoccupied with the human rights records of states viewed as Western adversaries. Such concern is not motivated by solidarity with victims, but by the desire to maintain political leverage that can be invoked when convenient and ignored when necessary.

Lest we forget, von der Leyen was among the first Western leaders to visit Israel following the events of October 7, arriving in Tel Aviv on October 13, 2023. Standing alongside Israeli leaders, she offered unconditional backing, declaring that “Europe stands with Israel.” She did so as Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to a devastating military assault that would soon claim tens of thousands of lives.

Although her rhetoric became somewhat more cautious as international legal institutions began investigating Israel for genocide and pursuing war crimes cases against its leaders, her fundamental political alignment never truly changed.

Keep reading

China Eyes Iran’s Postwar Reconstruction In Bid To Lock Up Future Oil Supplies

Beijing is positioning itself to lead the post-war reconstruction effort in Tehran – a move analysts suggest could secure China long-term access to critical Iranian oil reserves.

The diplomatic groundwork was laid during a recent meeting in New Delhi between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and the deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, according to Nikkei Asia. The talks underscore China’s broader strategy to expand its economic and diplomatic footprint in the Middle East amid the vacuum left in the wake of one failed US regime change and occupation war after another.

According to the report, Wang signaled Beijing’s long-term commitment to the Islamic Republic in the wake of prior weeks of heavy US-Israeli bombing, stating that: “China will continue to provide assistance to Iran while supporting reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts in the region.”

To date, China’s official involvement has largely centered on humanitarian logistics – at least according to its public-facing narrative.

This includes an upcoming deployment of emergency medical supplies to Lebanon, following recent Israeli military strikes in the country. However, observers note that the transition from humanitarian relief to large-scale infrastructure development is a key mechanism for Beijing to solidify energy security.

Nikkei Asia has issued the following commentary on China’s long-term plans in the Middle East:

Some observers argue that the U.S.-Iran war has strengthened Beijing’s presence in the Middle East. Rumi Aoyama, a professor at Japan’s Waseda University specializing in Chinese diplomacy, called China a “central hub where information on the situation in the Middle East was concentrated.”

China has dialogue channels with both Washington and Tehran, and it enjoys friendly ties with mediator Pakistan as an arms supplier. The Iranian and Pakistani foreign ministers frequently visited China during negotiations on ending the war to report on the situation.

The Iran war may also have worked to Beijing’s advantage in its dealings with Washington. With the U.S. prioritizing that conflict, it has been forced to ease up its pressure on China with regard to security and trade.

Yet Beijing has still welcomed the memorandum of understanding toward ending the war because stability in the Middle East is crucial for its energy security. Higher fuel and material prices caused by the war have dealt a blow to the Chinese economy.

Tehran, facing severe economic devastation and isolation from Western markets, has welcomed the Chinese overtures. High-level Iranian officials have made it clear they view Beijing not merely as an investor, but as a strategic anchor – akin to how defense ties with Russia have rapidly improved.

Keep reading

Trump instructs DOJ to investigate possible gasoline price gouging amid U.S.-Iran negotiations

President Donald Trump has called for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to “immediately” investigate possible gasoline price gouging as prices at the pump are slow to drop after the Strait of Hormuz was reopened during U.S.-Iran negotiations.

“The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil. Those prices are dropping like a rock!” Trump proclaimed in a Truth Social post early on Wednesday. “In other words, customers are being ‘gouged.’”

“I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this,” he added. “Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!”

After the signing of an initial memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices, the American benchmark, were under $70 per barrel as of Wednesday, down from about $112 per barrel in April.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the average price of gasoline in the U.S. was about $3.93 per gallon. This is lower than $4.52 a month prior, but more than $0.70 higher than the average price a year ago, according to AAA.

The opening of the Strait improved crude and gasoline supplies, though stockpiles were depleted during the military actions in the Middle East as countries tried to soften price hikes.

In another post on Wednesday, Trump added that Iran committed to imposing zero tolls on ships traveling through the important waterway, which should help to move traffic out of the oil-rich Gulf countries to export to other nations around the globe.

“Iran has informed the U.S. that, despite troublemaking Fake News reporting to the contrary, there are NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND BEING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED BY IRAN ON SHIPS TRAVELING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ. If this is false information, negotiations would end, immediately!” he clarified.

Keep reading

Netanyahu Cannot Have a Veto Over US Iran Diplomacy

On June 23, Israeli and Lebanese delegations began a new round of talks in Washington even as the U.S.-Iran memorandum entered its first serious test. The interim deal, signed on June 17, was meant to create 60 days of space for a final settlement: a halt in hostilities, a path toward safer navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, limited sanctions relief, and negotiations over the nuclear file. But the deal is now being tested by the very question it was supposed to contain. Can the United States pursue diplomacy with Iran while Israel insists that it must retain unrestricted freedom of military action in Lebanon?

That question should not be evaded. Israel has real security concerns about Iran’s nuclear capacity, its missile program, and the armed groups Tehran supports across the region. Israelis living near the Lebanese border have endured rocket fire and the threat of renewed war. A rushed agreement that merely freezes danger while leaving the machinery of escalation intact would not deserve American support. But serious security concerns do not create a right to veto another country’s diplomacy. They create a case for stronger verification, clearer consequences for violations, and more durable regional arrangements.

The June 17 memorandum is not a finished peace agreement. It is a fragile framework. Its text leaves the hardest questions for the next 60 days: the status of Iran’s enriched uranium, the future of enrichment, sanctions schedules, inspection arrangements, and the mechanisms that would enforce compliance. The United States has since issued a temporary sanctions waiver, while public statements from Washington and Tehran have already diverged over whether Iran agreed to long-term nuclear inspections. Those gaps are not a reason to abandon diplomacy. They are the reason diplomacy must be exacting.

This is where Netanyahu’s position matters. Israel is not a signatory to the U.S.-Iran memorandum, and it is entitled to press its case in Washington. Yet Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that Israeli forces must preserve freedom of action against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, even as the ceasefire there remains part of the wider regional de-escalation effort. That posture turns a legitimate debate over security into something more consequential: an assertion that any agreement limiting Israeli military discretion is, by definition, unacceptable.

The distinction is not semantic. Israel can demand that a final agreement address missile threats, weapons transfers, Hezbollah’s arsenal, and enforceable nuclear restrictions. It can seek rapid intelligence-sharing, inspection standards, and clear American commitments if Iran violates a deal. What it should not demand is a regional order built around the premise that Washington must keep military escalation available whenever Israeli leaders decide diplomacy has become too constraining. A security strategy can seek tougher terms without requiring permanent crisis as its operating condition.

Keep reading

Senate Approves House-Passed War Powers Resolution to Limit Trump’s Action in Iran – Four Republicans Join the Democrats

The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed war powers resolution to limit Trump’s action in Iran in a 50 to 48 vote.

Four Republicans joined the Democrats: Rand Paul (KY), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK).

Two Republican Senators – Mitch McConnell and David McCormick missed the vote.

McConnell’s office on Monday said that the Kentucky Senator will not be voting all week after his latest hospitalization.

Democrat Senator John Fetterman voted with the Republicans.

Tuesday’s vote marks the first time the Senate has passed the Iran war powers resolution.

Last month, the Senate advanced the resolution to limit President Trump’s war powers in Iran, marking a breakthrough for Democrats after seven failed attempts.

The House passed the war powers resolution earlier this month in a 215-208 vote.

The Hill reported:

The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed resolution directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran after four GOP senators broke ranks and voted to undercut Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief.

The Senate voted 50 to 48 to approve the resolution, which passed the House 215-208 earlier this month.

The measure came straight to the Senate floor Tuesday for an up-or-down vote on final passage. It does not need Trump’s signature because it is a concurrent resolution.

But it does not have the force of law, even though it’s been approved by both chambers.

It directs Trump under the 1973 War Powers Act to remove U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran except for elements of the armed forces that would be necessary to protect U.S. assets or allies from imminent attack.

Keep reading

Trump and the Iran Deal – Another Programmed Deception

“Trump made a deal out of “desperation.”” —Iranian Supreme Leader

Did President Trump really make a deal or rather betray the public at large again – for the umpteenth time? Such treason is only possible because nobody reads the details. He knows it. The mainstream knows it. The Big Shot politicians know it.

The deliberate confusion on where to sign the “Deal,” first Geneva, then at Macron’s insistence in Evian where the G7 met (15-17 June 2026), then on the Swiss Buergenstock mountain (where the absurd May 2024 Ukrainian Peace Talk, without Russian presence, took place, and where the Bilderbergers often meet); and finally signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), not a Peace Treaty at all, on 17 June, finalized on 18 June 2026, in Versailles, near Paris.

Macron, with an “as-low-as-it-gets” popularity rating, wanted to have a role in the deal to boost his ego and approval rating, without considering Versailles’ questionable past, that may be haunting this deal as well, like many others before.

The city of Versailles is controversial for many reasons, not least the various poison scandals of the late 17th and 18th century, but the most controversial treaty signed after World War I, is the Treaty of Versailles (1919) itself, with its infamous Article 231, the peace treaty, also called the “Guilt Treaty,” attributing all responsibility for WWI to Germany. The Treaty (article 231) at the time ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. But did it really?

The Treaty was disliked by almost every country that signed it and is widely viewed as a major factor that paved the way for WWII. It was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, and came into force on January 10, 1920.

Macron must know this. It is a bad omen for any new “Peace Treaty” – or MoU that intends to become a Peace Treaty.

Let us look at some details. The MoU, signed on 17 June 2026 at Versailles, was reported as a 14-point framework aimed at ending the war between the United States and Iran.

Keep reading

Senate passes ‘meaningless’ Iran resolution as Trump closes in on lasting peace deal

The Senate has approved a House-passed resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from hostilities in Iran as the White House works to negotiate a lasting settlement with Tehran.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 50 to 48 to approve the resolution, which cleared the House in a 215-208 vote a day prior. The measure directs Washington to remove U.S. armed forces from the country unless Congress authorizes further military action, as under the 1973 War Powers Act.

Since the resolution is a “concurrent resolution” it does not pass through the president’s desk for approval and carries disputed legal force. It does not have the force of law, however, despite the approval from both chambers.

The Act states that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief must alert Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities. Once the notification is submitted, a 60-day period begins, during which the president must terminate the use of force.

Members of the Trump administration, however, clarified that the operation against Iran was already considered terminated as of the ceasefire agreement established by President Trump on April 7th.

Four Republicans voted for the measure: Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

The same four GOP senators voted last week in an effort to discharge a similar resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but it failed to advance due to attendance issues from Democrat members.

Notably, two GOP senators missed the vote: Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Both senators had previously voted multiple times against Iran powers resolutions.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted “no” on Tuesday after alleging that he was open to hearing arguments from both sides of the debate. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat member to join the majority of Republicans in voting against the measure.

Keep reading

Feds: Operative with ‘Direct Ties to IRGC’ Tried to Enter US Posing as Iranian World Cup Soccer Team Prez

The Iranian government was caught trying to sneak a terrorist into the U.S.A. as a fake member of its World Cup national men’s soccer team, American officials say.

U.S. officials refused entry to an Iranian who they say has direct ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and who was claiming to be the president of Iran’s soccer federation, the New York Post reported.

Department of Homeland Security chief Markwayne Mullin told the media that the Iranian was prevented from entering the U.S. with the Iranian team when they tried to prepare to fly to the U.S. from Mexico.

“When we started doing the research on him, he had only been put in place since 2022, and we didn’t allow him to board the plane, ” Mullin told the host of Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.

The IRGC is the paramilitary arm of the Iranian military that answers directly to the mullahs and has been responsible for terrorist attacks all across the world.

Mullin added that the U.S. had taken pains to hold “multiple” conversations with representatives of Iran’s soccer team to ensure they understood their travel restrictions and entry criteria.

Iran head coach Amir Ghalenoei has bemoaned the treatment his team has received from his own government. He has also said that the harsh treatment has hurt his players’ performance.

The denial of entry to the Iranian IRGC member comes as the Trump administration continues to negotiate the end of the current military actions between the U.S. and Iran.

Keep reading

Trump’s Attempt To End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty

Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.

President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.

However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.

Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.

Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.

And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.

This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.

Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.

Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.

The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.

Keep reading