Tag: iran

House Democrats Seek to Launch ‘25th Amendment Commission’ to Remove Trump From Office

House Democrats have introduced new legislation to create a commission to evaluate whether President Trump should be removed from office under the 25th Amendment.

The proposal, led by New York Congressman Jamie Raskin, would establish a 17-member panel to assess whether the president is fit to carry out his duties.

The effort comes despite Republicans controlling Congress and the president retaining veto power, making the measure almost certain to fail.

More than 85 Democrats in Congress recently called for Trump to be impeached or removed through the 25th Amendment following comments he made about bombing Iran.

Keep reading

As US Initiates Blockade Of Hormuz, Trump Warns Any Iranian Ships Coming Near Will Be ‘Eliminated’

Mediators Still Press For Iran Deal After US Demanded 20-Year Halt To Nuclear Program

On Monday a US official has been cited in Axios as saying Iran must halt its nuclear enrichment program for 20 years to end the war, scaling back from an earlier White House demand for a permanent end to enrichment. And that’s when sources say the Iranians countered with a shorter “single digit” period, or less than ten years.

Multiple Middle Eastern countries are still working to mediate a resolution, as both Washington and Tehran moved away from maximalist positions on enrichment. Before the talks, Trump demanded a permanent halt, while Iran pushed for a deal allowing a civilian nuclear program without additional restrictions. Axios has further said the “door is not closed” on a deal, but certainly the two sides’ are still far apart, with Tehran accusing Washington of inexplicably reverting to intolerable “maximalist demands.”

At Least 15 US Navy Ships Enforce Blockade

The Wall Street Journal has newly detailed that more 15 American warships are now in place to support the operation, in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The report further specified that “An advisory to mariners from U.K. Maritime Trade Operations, which is affiliated with Britain’s Royal Navy, said maritime-access restrictions were being enforced for Iranian ports and coastal areas along the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Arabian Sea.

“Any vessel entering or departing the blockaded area without authorization is subject to interception, ​diversion, and capture,” a notification from US Central Command (CENTCOM) has said. And UKMTO has warned maritime traffic, “These access restrictions apply without distinction to vessels of any flag engaging with Iranian ports, oil terminals, or coastal facilities.”.

Keep reading

The Strait Of Hormuz Crisis Exposes A Fatal Flaw In Economic Thinking

A priest, an engineer, and an economist are stranded on a desert island. The first order of business is to get some food. The priest suggests that they all pray. The practical-minded engineer suggests that the three men make a net to catch some fish. But where will they find the necessary materials? The priest and the engineer turn to the economist and ask him if he has any ideas. The economist replies, “Assume a fish.”

This well-worn economist joke summarizes one of the chief flaws in contemporary economic theory.

That theory almost completely ignores the role of physical resources, assuming they will always be available in the quantities we need at prices we can afford at the time we need them. When those resources aren’t available, that theory begrudgingly accepts that there will be some damage to economic activity, but tends to greatly underestimate the impact.

This conceptual flaw explains why economists in most financial institutions and governments, and thus investors, are not especially alarmed at the loss of energy resources, as stock market indices remain not too far from their recent highs.

For a good summary of how contemporary economic theory goes off the rails, Australian economist Steve Keen offers a mercifully brief and comprehensible explanation. Here I will relate one critical part of that explanation. About 5.7 percent of U.S. GDP is devoted to procuring and distributing energy. Most economists will tell you that a 10 percent decline in energy availability would have a small effect on the U.S. economy. They would take the percentage of the economy devoted to energy, in this case 5.7 percent, and multiply it by 10 percent to arrive at a 0.57 percent reduction in economic activity.

This conclusion is utter nonsense and not even close to what the effects would be.

The reason is that energy is the master resource. It cannot be treated like other resources. Energy is the resource that makes all other resources available. Nothing gets done without energy. The correlation between economic activity and energy use is 0.9 (where 1.0 represents a perfect correlation). This should come as no surprise. When the economy is growing, energy use grows with it as energy fuels the economic activity that pushes growth.

What this implies is that a 10 percent reduction in energy availability is much more likely to result in a decline in economic activity closer to 10 percent than to one-half percent.  For comparison, the real GDP of the United States fell 4.3 percent during the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 through June 2009.

So, how much energy is currently being denied to the global economy by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz? No one knows for certain. We do know that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Qatar were previously transiting through the strait. And, close to 20 percent of the world’s oil supply was also passing through the strait on a daily basis.

Keep reading

Widespread Rationing And Global Energy Shortages Are Baked In No Matter When The War Ends Now

It is difficult to believe the pace at which global events are now moving. Apocalyptic threats are being thrown around recklessly and severe damage is being done to the global economic system every single day. A lot of people still seem to think that economic conditions will snap back to normal once the war ends, and that is because they don’t understand the level of destruction that has already taken place. Even if the war ends tomorrow and commercial traffic starts flowing freely through the Strait of Hormuz once again, the world won’t be getting nearly as much energy from the Middle East because dozens of oil and natural gas facilities have either been damaged or destroyed. That means that widespread rationing and global energy shortages are baked in no matter what happens next.

According to the executive director of the IEA, 75 energy sites in the Persian Gulf region have been attacked, and approximately a third of those sites have experienced severe damage…

It is going to take years to rebuild the damage that has already been done by this war.

So what will things look like if this war stretches on for many more months?

Tankers that traveled through the Strait of Hormuz before the war began have still been arriving at their destinations.

But this month that is going to stop happening, and Birol is warning that we are entering a “black April”…

Keep reading

Report: China Supplying Iran with Anti-Aircraft Weapons to Aid in Fight Against US

A new report revealed that American officials believe China is helping Iran in the war with the United States and Israel.

According to The New York Times, U.S. intelligence agencies believe China sent shoulder-fired missiles to Iran. The weapons can be used to down low-flying planes.

The report said the intelligence has some uncertainty, and it is also not clear if Chinese missiles were used in Iran’s recent attacks on U.S. or Israeli targets.

The report said American officials believe China, which heavily controls its private sector, is allowing chemicals, fuel, and parts for weapons to be sent to Iran.

The report noted that sending missiles to America’s foe “would be a significant escalation and an indication that at least some of China’s leaders are working actively to bring about an American military defeat in a war that has engulfed the Middle East.”

A CNN report indicated that China is planning to send the missiles to Iran, and will route them through a third-party nation to cover up the shipment’s origin.

Keep reading

Can’t bomb your way out of a logistical bottleneck

When officials from the United States and Iran walked away from negotiations in Pakistan this weekend with no deal on the Strait of Hormuz, markets didn’t wait for clarity. They reacted. The subsequent announcement by United States Central Command of a naval blockade targeting Iranian ports was meant to reassure. Instead, it raised more questions than answers.

Markets, as they often do, may be reading this correctly.

The Strait of Hormuz is not just another geopolitical hotspot. It is one of the most critical arteries of the global economy. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil and close to 30% of globally traded fertilizers pass through that narrow corridor. When flows are threatened, the consequences extend far beyond energy markets. They move quickly into agriculture, food production, and ultimately, the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store.

Oil prices are now back above $100 USD per barrel, but the real story began months ago. Markets started pricing in Middle East risks early in the year. In the food economy, there is typically a six- to nine-month lag between energy shocks and retail food prices. That means the inflationary pressure we are beginning to feel today was already set in motion weeks ago.

For Canadian consumers, it is already too late to avoid it.

The first signs are now emerging across the food system. Transport companies, facing extraordinary volatility, are reintroducing fuel surcharges and adjusting contracts upward. Suppliers are hedging aggressively. These costs do not stay within the supply chain—they get passed along.

Fresh produce will be among the first categories to reflect this shift. Fruits and vegetables rely heavily on long-distance, temperature-controlled transport, making them highly sensitive to fuel costs. Canadians should expect price increases in the range of 5% to 15% over the coming months, particularly for imported items. Meat and seafood will follow. These products are energy-intensive at every stage—from feed production to processing and refrigeration—and are likely to rise by 5% to 10%, with beef leading the way.

Dairy products will also move higher, though more gradually, as rising energy costs affect processing and distribution. Increases of 4% to 8% are likely over the next few quarters. Even staples like bread and cereals will not be spared. Fertilizer markets, closely tied to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, will push grain production costs higher, resulting in price increases of 3% to 6%. Processed foods, exposed to energy at multiple stages, will also climb steadily.

These are not isolated adjustments. They reflect a broader reality. Historically, a sustained rise in oil prices adds between one and three percentage points to food inflation in Canada. Under current conditions, grocery inflation could easily climb back toward 6% to 8%. For households, that translates into real money. Every sustained 25% increase in oil prices typically adds $150 to $200 annually to the average grocery bill. With oil already surging, the total impact could be several hundred dollars per family.

Keep reading

How Many People Have the US and Israel Killed in Iran?

After the breakdown of talks in Pakistan, the ceasefire between the US and Iran is more fragile than ever, and now seems likely to give way to a new phase of the war. The ceasefire and talks have failed to end Israel’s devastating attacks on Lebanon or to negotiate international access to the Strait of Hormuz, now under Iran’s control.

The world must use this pause in the war to push for a permanent ceasefire and peace agreement, but we must also start to assess the true human cost of the war–something the US is always reluctant to do in its wars, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. While we always know the exact number of Americans killed in these wars, we never have an accurate tally of how many people we have killed–not only because it is often hard to get the data, but also because the US systematically downplays civilian casualties and treats their lives as less valuable.

We saw this from the very first day of this war. The US carried out a double-tap strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, killing 175, mostly young girls. Trump’s response was to blame Iran: “In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran,” he said, and later suggested that Iran might have gotten hold of a Tomahawk missile and used it to kill its own people.

Minab is not an isolated case – it is a window into a much broader failure by the US government and media, as well as the Iranian government and international media, to honestly reveal the human toll of this 40-day war.

The Iran Health Ministry’s casualty figures have not been updated in any detail since March 29, when it put Iranian casualties at 2,076 killed and 26,500 wounded, and there is an obvious mismatch between these two numbers. The ratio between them is much higher than in other wars, or even when compared with the Israeli assault on Lebanon in this war, where Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported 1,830 people killed and 4.927 wounded by April 10, a ratio of 2.7 to 1 between the wounded and the dead.

For further comparison, UN figures for civilian casualties in the war in Ukraine are 15,172 and 41,378 wounded, which is also a ratio of 2.7 to 1. These are certainly under-estimates, like civilian casualty counts in every war, but the ratio between deaths and injuries is realistic, unlike that in Tehran’s casualty figures.

Keep reading

US & Israel Bomb 307+ Medical Facilities In Iran Carrying On Long Tradition Of Targeting Medical Workers

The United States and Israel are systematically targeting hospitals in Iran. In one month of bombing, the two countries have hit at least 307 health centers across the country, according to reports from the Iranian Red Crescent. The carefully planned destruction of the Islamic Republic’s medical infrastructure fits into a long history of deliberate U.S. attacks on hospitals. Since the end of World War Two, Washington has targeted medical centers in at least 16 countries, and the 307 Iranian sites hit does not even come close to the record for the number of hospitals in any country destroyed by American bombs and missiles.

Iranian Destruction

There was no warning. U.S. and Israeli airstrikes hit Gandhi Hotel Hospital in northern Tehran on March 1, and again on March 2. Locals were fasting for Ramadan as missiles tore into the building, shattering glass and wrecking its neo-natal unit and ICU. Completed in 2009 and described as “beacon” of Iranian medicine and one of the most advanced medical centers in West Asia, the 17-storey building was among the country’s most important hospitals. Images of the aftermath show a once proud building in ruins, with floor after floor devastated. Gandhi Hotel Hospital is one of more than 300 medical centers that have been hit by U.S. and Israeli strikes. Nine days afterward, on March 11, the Persian Gulf Martyrs Educational and Medical Center in Bushehr on Iran’s southern coast was targeted and severely damaged.

Missile explosions destroyed much of the hospital’s medical equipment. Even as the glass was still falling, authorities made the decision to rush patients to the nearby Nuclear Scientists Martyrs Hospital, despite the fear of a double-tap strike, like the ones often seen in Israeli attacks on Palestine. On March 21, the Imam Ali Hospital in Andimeshk, Khuzestan Province, was targeted. Video footage from the aftermath of the attack shows wards, waiting rooms, and corridors completely devastated, with both walls and roofs collapsing under the strain of U.S./Israeli bombardment.

The Imam Ali is Andimeshk’s only hospital, and patients were forced to be bussed to healthcare facilities in other cities, according to Hossein Kermanpour, head of public relations for the Iranian Ministry of Health. I wish [Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu] understood that this is a crime against humanity,” he said.

Other medical infrastructure, including a first responders’ center, an Iranian Red Crescent office, and the Pasteur Institute, a medical research laboratory, have also been hit. “What message does attacking hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the Pasteur Institute as a medical research center in Iran convey?” asked Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian; “As a specialist physician, I urge WHO, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders and physicians worldwide to respond to this crime against humanity.”

The attacks have been largely ignored by Western media. Few newspapers or TV news reports have even mentioned the damage to the country’s healthcare system, let alone centered it as a major news story.

The U.S.’ Long History of Bombing Hospitals

President Trump has a history of targeting medical facilities. Last year, U.S. forces carried out 14 separate airstrikes on the Al Rasool Al-Azam Oncology Hospital in Saada, Yemen, the centerpiece of the country’s healthcare network. For a full investigation into the attack, and the U.S.’ long history of targeting civilian medical infrastructure around the world, see the MintPress News report:

“With Yemen Attack, U.S. Continues Long History of Deliberately Bombing Hospitals.” Repeated attacks against hospitals is more of a pattern than an aberration for Trump. In 2017, the U.S. carried out 20 strikes against a hospital in Raqqa, Syria, using white phosphorous munitions to do so, killing at least 30 civilians in the process.

Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, was not less fond of targeting healthcare facilities. In 2015, his administration ordered a bombing campaign against a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The building was one of the largest and most recognizable in the city, and an internal inquiry found that the airmen aboard the gunship pushed back against the order, citing its illegality. They were overruled and forced to carry out the strike, killing at least 42 people. Obama’s attack on Doctors Without Borders marked the only time in history that one Nobel Peace Prize winner has attacked another one. During his time in office, Obama bombed seven countries, including Libya, where U.S. planes struck a hospital in Zliten, leveling it completely. At least 11 people were killed in the operation.

Perhaps no nation on Earth has felt the impact of American power in the 21st century as badly as Iraq. Successive administrations attacked critical infrastructure there, including in 2003, when President Bush bombed the Red Crescent Maternity Hospital in Baghdad. While many were killed in the strike, the real death toll, as UNICEF noted, was far higher, as with no medical care, maternal mortality spiked after the attack. The 1990s is often remembered in the West as a time of peace. Yet President Clinton used the period to target medical infrastructure in three separate countries. In Yugoslavia, U.S. planes bombed a number of hospitals, including dropping now-banned cluster munitions on a facility in Niš, killing at least 15 people.

In Somalia in 1993, U.S. soldiers carried out a mortar attack against the Digfer Hospital in Mogadishu, destroying the building’s main reception area. They then proceeded to bomb the journalists attempting to cover the incident. Meanwhile, in Sudan, Clinton ordered a hit on the Al-Shifa medicine factory in Sudan. Fourteen cruise missiles pounded the plant, turning what had been the largest producer of medicine in the country into a pile of twisted metal. The German Ambassador to Sudan estimated that, without the antibiotics, antimalarials, and other drugs it produced, the true death toll of the strike was in the “tens of thousands.” Few Americans know about this incident. The 1980s were a dangerous time to be a doctor in a country designated for regime change.

The U.S. invaded Grenada in 1983, in order to put an end to the socialist revolution on the Caribbean island. In the process, it bombed the Richmond Hill Mental Hospital, killing dozens. In El Salvador, U.S.-backed death squads flying in American aircraft stormed a hospital in San Ildefonso, killing five people. Paratroopers also kidnapped, raped, and tortured the staff, including French nurse Madeleine Lagadec, causing a major diplomatic incident. Between 1981 and 1984, at least 63 health centers in Nicaragua were forced to close, due to attacks from U.S.-backed and trained “Contra” death squads, whom President Reagan labeled “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.”The violence meted out on Asia by the U.S., however, was on another level entirely. Bombing hospitals was official (if unstated) policy. “The bigger the hospital, the better it was,” said former Army intelligence specialist Allan Stevenson, explaining the U.S. military’s position on Vietnam.The most well-documented case of U.S. attacks on Vietnamese medical infrastructure occurred in December 1972, when American planes dropped over 100 bombs on the giant Bach Mai Hospital in Hanoi, killing at least 28 staff and an unconfirmed number of patients. During a Congressional hearing on clandestine activities in Laos and Cambodia, lawmakers were told that bombing of hospitals in those countries was “routine.”

To this day, Laos remains the most bombed country in history. North Korea, however, suffered the brunt of American attacks. In the course of the Korean War, the U.S. military destroyed an estimated 1,000 hospitals through bombing, as entire cities were leveled. Professor Bruce Cummings, America’s foremost expert on Korea, estimates that the U.S. killed around 25% of the entire North Korean population between 1950 and 1953.Israeli Crimes and American DreamsIsrael, of course, is no stranger to bombing hospitals, either. Virtually every health center in Gaza has been damaged or destroyed. Israeli Defense Forces snipers have targeted healthcare workers inside hospitals, and have kidnapped, and tortured doctors. A particularly noteworthy example is that of Adnan Al-Bursh, head of orthopedics at al-Shifa Hospital. In December 2023, al-Bursh was arrested and detained for months, and was likely raped to death by IDF troops.

Keep reading

Nuclear Myths Continue To Fuel Neocon Fantasies

In a recent televised rant on the Fox News Channel, the neoconservative publicist Mark Levin made the eye-opening claim that the current US-Israeli War on Iran is “every bit as important as World War Two.” Still more, according to Levin, the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon (for which there is approximately zero evidence), requires us, as good citizens to rally around the President and the military. Not surprisingly, Levin also noted that President Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons against Japan saved “a million men” by forestalling a US invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (the inference being: Trump should do likewise). Truman’s decision to incinerate Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs remains a topic (among a number of others) with which we Americans largely deal in the counterfeit currency of myths.

Despite the conclusions of the US Bombing Survey, that “certainly prior to December 1, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated,” few myths are as entrenched in the psyche of America’a media and political elites as the claim that Truman’s decision (invariably valorized as “brave”) to incinerate a quarter of a million civilians – mainly women, children, and elderly – in Hiroshima and Nagasaki won the war in the Pacific.

The claim that Truman’s decision saved countless American lives has grown to proportions that would have surprised, if not shocked, Truman’s own military high command. President George H.W. Bush, himself a veteran of the Pacific campaign, claimed that the atomic bombs saved the lives of half-a-million US servicemen.

The record, however, rebuts the myth.

Truman’s military advisers disagreed with Truman. Five-star Navy Admiral William Leahy, who served as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, felt that the bombs were “of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” The Japanese, said Leahy, “were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Leahy believed Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons had “adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.” Likewise, Admiral William F. Halsey, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, noted that, “the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers throughout Russia long before” Truman decided to drop the bombs. Two weeks after the nuclear attacks, General Curtis LeMay publicly criticized the decision, saying, “The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The myth that the bombs “saved” a million US servicemen who would have otherwise perished in the invasion of the Home Islands came from the pen and imagination of the man who would become among the most infamous strategists and apologists for the War in Vietnam, McGeorge Bundy.

Keep reading

YouTube Removes Pro-Iran Channel Producing Anti-Trump Videos

Google, the owners of YouTube, has removed a channel on the platform belonging to a pro-Iran group producing Lego-themed videos mocking Donald Trump.

“Upon review, we’ve terminated the channel for violating our Spam, deceptive practices and scams policies,” a YouTube spokesperson told Middle East Eye. “YouTube doesn’t allow spam, scams, or other deceptive practices that take advantage of the YouTube community.” 

Explosive Media’s content largely consists of animations ridiculing the US war effort against Iran and poking fun at the US president.

YouTube did not specify how the channel had violated its policies, but the company has previously been described as being “aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”.  

One of the group’s videos depicts Trump hurling a chair at US military figures, while Iranian generals press a red button with the label “Back to the Stone Age,” referencing a threat made by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Another depicts Trump with a flaming bottom, holding a sign that reads: “VICTORY! I am a loser.”

A number of videos reference Shia Islamic mythology, including depictions of Hussein ibn Ali, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, who is a key symbol of resistance and spiritual leadership for Shia Muslims. 

Writing on X, Explosive Media hit out at Google for suspending its channel, saying it had been done because its content was “violent”. It wrote: “Seriously! Are our LEGO-style animations actually violent?” 

Explosive Media, known in Persian as Akhbar Enfejari, has denied it is backed by the Iranian government and its videos have reached millions of viewers across a range of social media platforms.

Its most recent video prior to being suspended appeared to show Trump carrying out the war in Iran to distract from the Epstein files and at Israel’s behest.

It also implied that Epstein and his associates had engaged in cannibalism, for which there is no evidence. An earlier video referenced other victims of US violence through history, including Native Americans, the Vietnamese and the children of Gaza, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It also quoted Malcolm X. 

Keep reading