The USA has begun to ship THAAD batteries to Israel. They are among the most advanced air defense systems in the world and can intercept a ballistic missile even outside the atmosphere.
American soldiers will reportedly be sent with a THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) air defense system to Israel in order to prepare for intercepting ballistic missiles from Iran.
On October 11, journalist Jeremy Loffredo was ordered released from Israeli jail.
Israeli soldiers had arrested the Jewish-American reporter and three other journalists at a checkpoint in the West Bank on October 8. According to one of the jailed reporters, the soldiers blindfolded them tightly, roughed them up and hauled them off to detention in Jerusalem. While Loffredo’s colleagues were released after 11 hours, the “Judea and Samaria” division of the Israeli police opened an investigation into Loffredo for supposedly “aiding the enemy in a time of war.”
The Israeli police’s accusation related to Loffredo’s video report for The Grayzone covering the aftermath of Iranian missile strikes aimed at Israeli military installations. According to the police, Jeremy had revealed “the locations of missile drops near or inside sensitive security facilities, with the aim of bringing this to the notice of the enemy, and thereby assisting them in their future attacks.”
Watch Jeremy Loffredo’s report, “On the ground investigating Iran’s strikes on Israel” here.
On October 9, an Israeli court declared it had “reasonable suspicion” to extend the journalist’s imprisonment. At a hearing the next day, the police insisted to Magistrate’s Court Judge Zion Sahrai that Loffredo was not an actual journalist, but did not present any evidence that he was pursuing a hostile ulterior agenda.
A journalist from the Israeli publication YNet countered the innuendo from the police by pointing out that the military censor approved his own article in which a tweet containing Loffredo’s full video report for The Grayzone was embedded.
Judge Sahrai ordered Loffredo’s release, stating that since Israeli military censors agreed to allow Ynet to publish both “word of [Jeremy’s] arrest and the publications that led to his arrest,” Israel could “no longer justify his continued detention.”
However, the police appealed Sahrai’s decision, protesting that the censor only approved the YNet article retroactively, and would have never done so if it had been submitted in advance.
That police also complained that Loffredo had refused to unlock his phone for them, insisting they needed more time to crack the device. “We believe that we will find things on the phone and we will be able to link him [to the alleged crime],” a police representative stated.
That argument did not hold water with Jerusalem District Court Judge Hana Miriam Lomp, however. “The Court of First Instance did not err when it ordered the release of the respondent,” Judge Lomp stated during the October 11 appeal. “From the detailed investigative actions there is no fear of disruption [from Jeremy], and in light of the reasons stated above, the cause of the danger is also not clear.”
Though Lomp ordered the journalist be released, she gave police until October 20 to continue their digital strip search. Until then, Loffredo will remain without his passport and will not be permitted to return home to his family in the US.
Jeremy Loffredo, an American journalist for The Grayzone, has been arrested by the Israeli military for his reporting inside Israel.
Loffredo was jailed just a few days after releasing a report on Iranian missile strikes in Israel, information the Israeli military has been trying to censor. According to the Israeli news site Ynet, because of the report, Loffredo faces charges of “aiding the enemy during wartime and providing information to the enemy.”
Representatives from the US embassy attended a hearing on a police request to extend Loffredo’s detention, but so far, the US government has been silent and has not publicly called for his release.
President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved closer to an understanding on Israel’s plans to attack Iran during their phone call on Wednesday, Axios reported on Thursday.
The report, which cited US and Israeli officials, said that the US had accepted Israel is going to launch a major attack on Iran soon and is only concerned that striking certain types of targets could dramatically escalate things. However, Iran has vowed it will respond to any type of Israeli attack, and the situation could easily turn into a full-blown war that would involve the US.
An Israeli official told Axios that the Israeli plans are still a bit more aggressive than the US would like. The US has been warning against striking nuclear facilities or oil infrastructure, and recent media reports have said Israel will likely target military infrastructure.
Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Thursday to brief them on the situation with the US and is expected to get approval for him and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to set a timeline for the Israeli attack. The Times of Israel reported that the US and Israel will continue conversations on the plans in the coming days, signaling the attack is not imminent.
NBC News reported on Tuesday that the US was considering supporting Israel’s attack with direct airstrikes of its own, although US officials said intelligence support was more likely.
President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday to discuss Israel’s plans to attack Iran in retaliation for the Iranian missile barrage fired at Israel last week.
Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel in response to multiple Israeli escalations, including the assassination of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran. Israeli officials told Axios that Israel’s retaliation would likely involve airstrikes on Iranian military sites coupled with covert operations similar to the Haniyeh assassination.
NBC News reported on Tuesday that the US was considering supporting Israel’s attack with direct airstrikes of its own, although US officials said intelligence support was more likely. The US has also committed to defending Israel from any Iranian response.
When asked what the U.S. response might be to the Iranian airstrikes on Israel last week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested it was Washington’s war, too.
“We have made clear that there will be consequences, severe consequences, for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case,” Sullivan said during a press briefing at the White House.
To which Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) fumed on X: “Work with Israel? Excuse me, the Constitution requires you to work with Congress!”
Two days later, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the same platform. “Any offensive action by the U.S. against Iran would be unconstitutional without a Congressional Declaration of War,” he wrote.
Nevertheless, as talk turns to the kind of retaliation Israel might deliver against Iran for its 200 ballistic missile attacks (which Israel and U.S. both claim were “ineffective”), it is becoming clear that the U.S. might play a direct role. That was not refuted this week when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called his counterpart Yoav Gallant (he was to meet with him in Washington today, but the confab has been postponed): “I confirmed the United States commitment to Israel’s security and shared that the United States is well postured across the region to defend Israel and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.”
Even more to the point, CENTCOM commander Gen. Erik Kurilla met with Gallant in Israel and had this to say:
We discussed ongoing Iranian-backed threats to the region and efforts to stabilize the region, ensure Israel’s security, and deter Iran’s malign and reckless activities, Before departing, I reiterated the strength of our ironclad military-to-military commitment between CENTCOM and the Israeli Defense Forces.
In back-to-back radio interviews with Brian Thomas on October 2, Massie and Andrew Napolitano expressed their concern that we may wake up tomorrow and find that the Biden administration had made the executive decision to take the nation to war. “You won’t see a declaration of war because Congress doesn’t want to embarrass itself. It’ll just look the other way while the president does whatever the hell he or she wants. And that’s, to me, just frightening,” charged Napolitano.
No matter who wins the presidential election next month, US policy towards Iran seems likely to remain extremely hostile and confrontational. Both campaigns seem determined to out-hawk each other. The Iran policy debate in Washington, such as it is, is focused entirely on the same bankrupt coercive measures of sanctions, threats, and military action that are guaranteed to make things worse. There is no serious discussion of reducing tensions or resuming negotiations in the new year. The persistence of this failed hawkish consensus is dangerous for the US, Iran, and the wider region, and it needs to end.
The failed bipartisan hawkish consensus on Iran closes off paths for resolving disagreements peacefully, and it paves the way for unnecessary wars. The consensus embraces escalation as the solution to each new crisis, and it writes off diplomacy as naïve and useless. It is the same kind of bankrupt, outdated thinking that has dominated US foreign policy in the region for at least the last thirty years, and it is why US Iran policy remains so destructive and dangerous. We are desperately in need of some fresh and different policy ideas.
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are content to keep the US on a collision course with Iran for the time being, and that means that the US will be stuck with the same rotten foreign policy in the Middle East for at least another four years. Donald Trump recently expressed support for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. During the vice-presidential debate, Sen. Vance said that he would support whatever Israel wanted to do. On the Democratic side, Vice President Harris bizarrely claimed that Iran is America’s “greatest adversary” in response to a question in her interview with 60 Minutes. Harris asserted that Iran was an “obvious” candidate for being the greatest adversary because its government “has American blood on its hands.”
Over the weekend, the Commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), General Michael Kurilla, arrived in Israel to “coordinate” with the Israeli military and plan a military strike against Iran. Think about that for a moment: one of the highest-ranking officers in the US military is planning a war in a foreign country against another foreign country which will be fueled by American weapons, American intelligence, and American tax dollars.
Did that foreign country – Iran – attack the United States or threaten Americans? No, it did not. What did Iran do to warrant a CENTCOM commander bringing the weight of the US military into play to plan a war – possibly WWIII? It retaliated against Israeli airstrikes including the assignation of a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.
It was the Israeli missile attack on Tehran – an unprecedented event – that set off this chain of escalation, but few would know if from media coverage. This war fever between Israel and Iran not only has nothing to do with us, but our increasing involvement actually hurts our national interests in the region.
After a deadly and futile three-year proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the last thing we need is another war in the Middle East, especially against Iran. But make no mistake, war is what we are getting. This Administration has even offered to “compensate” Israel with even more weapons and diplomatic support if they hit targets of the US choosing and avoid others in Iran.
Imagine if China sent military officials to Iran to pay Tehran to make sure some US targets were struck and others avoided. Would we consider it Iran’s war against us, or China’s war against us? Both?
Has Congress declared war on Iran or even authorized the war? No. Has this Administration explained to us why Americans suffering after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene are on their own because we need to spend billions on a war that is none of our business? No. The neocons have wanted this war for decades and for them it’s always America last.
This war will make us less free, less safe, and much poorer. There will be no benefits at all, only downside.
High upon his perch atop the New York Times editorial page, Bret Stephens offers a full-throated call for the United States to launch a war of aggression against Iran. This featured opinion piece in the “paper of record” is noteworthy because it reflects the detritus that’s currently swirling around the minds of U.S. foreign policy elites concerning a big war with Iran.
Mr. Stephens serves up so many glaring omissions in this op-ed that when you finish reading it your eyes will burn as if you had been staring at the sun. He begins with a paragraph-long quotation from the late Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who Israel assassinated on September 27th with over 80 two-thousand pound “bunker buster” bombs in the Dahiya Shia quarter of South Beirut. He uses the quotation to strongly suggest that Nasrallah’s only real motive in fighting against the Israelis was to “kill all Jews.” Stephens knows how to get a rise out of his readers.
By smearing Nasrallah as nothing more than an “antisemite” he purposely overlooks the reasons for Hezbollah’s existence in the first place. There was no Hezbollah until after the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its military occupation of the country that lasted for eighteen years. The IDF and their Lebanese proxies killed approximately 17,000 civilians. Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, Lebanon on August 31, 1960. He was a young man during the years of Israeli occupation; and like many Lebanese, he wasn’t very keen on seeing a large piece of his country become another Gaza Strip or West Bank. In 1985, a new resistance group bounded onto the scene as part of the ongoing struggle to push the Israelis out of Lebanon: Hezbollah, “The Party of God.”
The US has offered Israel a “compensation package” if it avoids hitting certain targets in its planned attack on Iran, The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday, citing the Israeli TV channel Kan 11.
Amichai Stein, a correspondent for Kan 11, said the package would include military aid and a guarantee that the US would provide total diplomatic support.
“An American official said, ‘If you don’t hit targets A, B, C, we will provide you with diplomatic protection and an arms package,” Chair said. “Israeli officials responded saying, ‘We consider the United States and listen to them. But we will do anything and everything we can to protect the citizens and the security of the State of Israel.’”
The US is coordinating with Israel on its plans to respond to the Iranian missile barrage that hit Israel last week, which came in response to several Israeli escalations throughout the region, including the July 31 assassination of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.
The US has said it will ensure Iran faces “severe consequences” but has warned against certain types of attacks, including attacks on Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. President Biden said the US and Israel were discussing the idea of strikes on Iranian oil sites, but later said if he was in Israel’s shoes, he would be thinking about “other alternatives than striking oil fields.”
Other attacks Israel is considering include strikes on Iran’s air defense systems or more targeted assassinations inside Iran. The US is expected to support the attack in some way, whether by providing intelligence or more direct support and is vowing to defend Israel from any Iranian retaliation.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.