Tag: iran

Who’s behind the mysterious ‘Iran-backed terror cell’ haunting Europe?

Claims that an Iran-backed group is carrying out attacks in European cities raise questions about why they’re not targeting countries directly involved in the US-Israeli war, and why they appear to communicate like Israelis.

Strangely, suspects arrested in the attacks have been released on bail.

A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of Ashab al-Yamin. Officially known as “Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI),” or the “Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right,” the group mysteriously appeared in early March, and, according to mainstream media, it’s taking the continent by storm.

But a closer look at the supposedly Iran-backed terror organization suggests that it does not exist in any concrete form, and may be a confection of Israeli intelligence.

Though the nebulous HAYI claimed credit for torching ambulances belonging to a Jewish community organization in London on March 23, two suspects in the attack have been released on bail, and are not charged with any terror-related crimes. What’s more, London Metropolitan Police have so far refused to release the men’s names, raising questions about their identities. Were they even Muslim? 

HAYI’s first public mention in the West came on March 9, when the previously non-existent organization released a video showing an explosive device detonating outside a synagogue in Liege, Belgium, alongside a statement taking credit for the attack. Within hours, the group had somehow been identified by the “SITE Intelligence Group,” an Israeli-led private intelligence firm founded in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to cash in on the newly-minted Global War on Terror.

The materials HAYI published were promptly circulated on social media by Joe Truzman, a self-described “Senior Research analyst examining Palestinian armed groups and Iranian proxy organizations” at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative DC-based think tank founded in 2001 with the stated goal of working to “enhance Israel’s image.” As The Grayzone reported, the Trump White House plagiarized its public justification for attacking Iran word-for-word from an FDD paper. 

Though Truzman declined to state where he’d found the materials, he wrote that “Telegram channels linked to the Axis of Resistance… widely disseminated the publications,” using a reference to a variety of resistance factions sympathetic to Iran and Palestine throughout the greater Middle East. The group he linked to, a popular Telegram channel called Sabereen News, made it clear they were reposting the video, which they said was the work of a group calling themselves “the companions.” 

Almost immediately, Truzman began asserting that these “companions” were all but guaranteed to be a Tehran-linked cutout. For starters, he told British media, “their logo with the wording is a sign of a classic Iranian front organization.” And Iran had already threatened to carry out just such a wave of attacks, Truzman claimed. After all, he wrote, “On March 8, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy-foreign minister, warned that if a European country joined the US and Israel in the current war against the Islamic Republic, it would be a ‘legitimate’ target ‘for Iranian retaliation.’”

Over the next two weeks, the shadowy group would go on to take credit for burning a vehicle in a Jewish neighborhood in Antwerp, arson at a synagogue in Rotterdam, explosions near a Jewish school and financial office building in Amsterdam, firebombing Jewish-dedicated ambulances in London, and an unspecified attack in Greece. 

So far, the only media outlet to have interviewed a member of HAYI is CBS News, which was recently purchased by David Ellison, the ultra-Zionist billionaire son of the largest individual donor to Israel’s military, Larry Ellison, who happens to be a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Bari Weiss, the editor-in-chief installed by Ellison at CBS, is a self-described “Zionist fanatic.”

Keep reading

Why Washington needs talks with Tehran more than it admits

In recent days, there has been a noticeable shift in US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding Iran. Less than a week ago, Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran, threatening strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure if it refused to unblock the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Trump has expressed openness to negotiations and even claims that some contact with the Iranian side has taken place. This rhetorical shift may not reflect a genuine diplomatic process but could be part of an information strategy. After it became clear that Tehran was unwilling to make concessions and was unresponsive to Trump’s coercive pressure, the US attempted to make it look like the Iranian side was the one suggesting talks.

Israeli news outlet Ynet claims that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has agreed to negotiate with the US. However, no credible evidence has surfaced to back this, raising questions about the sources of the information and its purpose. Given the current dynamics, these reports can be seen as propaganda aimed at crafting an image of Iran as vulnerable and eager for urgent dialogue with Washington. These interpretations might serve to reinforce the narrative of Tehran’s weakening position.

In Tehran, this is perceived as an attempt to influence global energy markets. Public signals from the US, particularly from Trump, affect oil and gas price dynamics, especially amid tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz – a critical artery for global hydrocarbon supplies. In this context, talk of negotiations can be viewed as a tool for stabilizing expectations and reducing market volatility.

Iranian society and elites remain skeptical about negotiations with the US. Based on past experiences, Iran believes that diplomatic agreements with Washington do not lead to long-term de-escalation and are often followed by increased pressure or an escalation of the conflict. In the current situation, Iran maintains that its position does not necessitate immediate negotiations. Furthermore, within the regional landscape, Iran possesses the capability for asymmetric influence, utilizing allied actors and indirect means of leverage.

Keep reading

AWACS’ Destruction is a Major Loss for US Military – Ex-DoW Analyst

The destruction of a US E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft in Saudi Arabia by an Iranian missile strike is a serious blow to the US military, former US Department of War analyst Karen Kwiatkowski tells Sputnik.

The US has a limited number of E-3 aircraft, which are based on aging Boeing 707 airframes, and the next-generation replacement for E-3 is not yet available

The loss of even one of E-3s puts a strain on the remaining aircraft as they are forced to operate longer. It demoralizes the crew, stresses systems, and “increases the consumption rate of surveillance capability and information management”

Other E-3s now have to prioritize their own defense, which may reduce the radar, surveillance, and command effectiveness they supply

With many of the important US long-range radars in the region being knocked out by Iranian strikes, the strain put on E-3 aircraft will only get worse, with further losses among them threatening to “narrow and pressure the information space for theater commanders and US and Israeli forces”

Due to E-3’s distinctive and well-recognized function and appearance, Kwiatkowski adds, its destruction creates concern in the US because it doesn’t look like “winning,” and that claims of Iran losing its fighting capability were premature.

Keep reading

Iran: The test the US cannot afford to fail

The outcome of the war with Iran will determine America’s capabilities on the world stage for years to come. That is what makes the current conflict in West Asia so consequential, far beyond the region itself.

US policy toward Iran has become increasingly erratic. Rather than focus on the president’s shifting rhetoric, it is more useful to examine the logic underpinning the confrontation. Washington appears to have convinced itself that the moment is right to act decisively against Tehran, exploiting what it perceives as a window of vulnerability.

The objective, viewed in isolation, has a certain cold rationality. A single, well-executed strike could, in theory, achieve several long-standing goals at once: Settle the historical grievance of the 1979 embassy crisis, remove a regime seen as hostile to Israel, gain leverage over key energy resources and transport routes, and weaken emerging Eurasian integration projects. Advisers appear to have presented this as a rare opportunity. The president accepted the argument.

But such ambitions rest on a fundamental miscalculation. Iran is not Iraq in 2003, nor Afghanistan in 2001. Its military capabilities are far more substantial than those of any adversary the US has confronted directly in recent decades. It is a large, resilient state with deep strategic depth and a capacity to inflict serious disruption on global trade and energy flows.

This last point is critical. Iran’s geographic position gives it leverage that few countries possess. Even limited escalation can threaten shipping routes and economic stability far beyond the Middle East, directly affecting the interests of the US and its allies. That reality alone complicates any attempt at a quick, clean victory.

Keep reading

US-Iran war live: Donald Trump drops hint that massive escalation is imminent

Donald Trump seemed to drop a hint about his intentions in Iran on Sunday, Australian time, as he directed his followers on social media to tune in for a media appearance by a conservative political commentator, Mark Levin.

“Watch Mark Levin interview of Brilliant Marc Thiessen tonight at 8pm on Fox News. Will discuss the importance of hitting Iran, HARD!!! President DJT,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Mr Thiessen, now a columnist and TV panelist, previously worked as a speechwriter for the Republican president George W. Bush. He and Mr Levin are both very much in favour of the Iran war.

The TV segment in question turned out to involve Mr Levin advocating for a dramatic escalation in Iran, which would involve the deployment of US ground troops to the country. He suggested Mr Trump should order the American military to seize the regime’s stores of enriched uranium.

Such an operation would be fraught with danger for US forces.

“Why would we need troops on the ground?” Mr Levin said, before answering the question for his viewers.

“Well there’s a lot of reasons, and we wouldn’t need 300,000 of them,” he said.

“It’s this uranium too. We’ve got to get the uranium.

“If it cannot be destroyed, if it cannot be altered, we’ve gotta get it. For the reason I just said, you can make dirty bombs and over time you can still make sophisticated missiles.

“So you need to get to the uranium. That’s why I’m reading, in the paper, we’re talking about (various troop deployments). It’s not talking abouts ending regular army and infantry in by the hundreds of thousands. The men he’s talking about, they are specialised.

“You know what else? I remember from my days in the Reagan administration. Many of them are trained for a moment like this. To try to secure enriched uranium.”

Keep reading

IRGC targets US-linked aluminum industries in coordinated missile-drone strike

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has announced targeting two industries connected to US military and aerospace sectors in a combined missile and drone operation.

In a statement on Saturday, the Corps said the strikes were carried out jointly by its Aerospace Force and Navy in response to “the malicious actions of the US-Zionist enemy targeting the industrial infrastructure of our beloved country from the Persian Gulf’s littoral states.”

The two targeted facilities were identified as the Emirates Aluminum (EMAL) plant and the Aluminum Bahrain (ALBA) plant.

The statement highlighted their strategic significance, noting that EMAL houses the world’s longest aluminum production line with a capacity of 1.3 million tons, while ALBA operates with American investment and shareholding. The latter, it added, “plays a significant role in supplying the military-industrial production of the US terrorist army.”

Keep reading

Exiled Iranian crown prince says at CPAC he intends to ‘make Iran great again’

Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, called on the American people to take a moment and reflect on what a free Iran would look like.

“No more nuclear threats. No more terrorism. No more hostage taking. No more closing of the Strait of Hormuz. No more blackmailing fo the global community. Imagine an Iran that instead of exporting terrorism, is promoting freedom,” he said at the conference.

“Stability to its neighbors. National security and economic opportunity for the United States and the free world,” he added.

“Can you imagine Iranians going from ‘Death to America’ to ‘God Bless America’?” he also said. “I can because I’ve seen the true soul of my people.”

The crowd began chanting, “USA.”

He said he can imagine an Iran that “exports engineers, instead of extremists” and “startups instead of suicide bombers.”

He said the Middle East will change when Iran is free.

“President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again,” he said.

Keep reading

‘Contradictory’ Public Opinions on Iran Are Baked Into CBS’s Polling

A recent CBS News poll (3/17–20/26) declared that a majority of Americans (53%) say it would be “unacceptable” if the United States were to end the conflict with Iran with that country’s current leadership still in power.

Moreover, the poll also found that large majorities of Americans say it is “important” to “make sure Iran’s people are safe and free,” to “permanently stop Iran’s nuclear programs,” and to “stop Iran from threatening other countries.”

These results seem to suggest that most Americans want the war to continue until those goals, including regime change in Iran, are actually achieved.

Much of the rest of the poll, however, suggests the public does not support the war with Iran, even when “conflict” instead of the touchy word “war” is used to describe what’s happening. According to the poll:

  • 60% disapprove of the US taking military action against Iran.
  • 62% disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the situation in Iran.
  • 57% believe the “conflict in Iran” is going “very/somewhat badly.”
  • 51% do not believe it is important to change Iran’s leaders to ones that are pro-US.
  • 92% believe it is important to “end the conflict as quickly as possible.”

The report notes: “If those desires between goals and a fast end seem contradictory, it connects to the continued call for more explanation from the administration.”

The poll did ask if the Trump administration had clearly explained its goals, and only 32% said it had; 68% said no.

But that is not evidence of the public’s “continued call for more explanation.” There is nothing in the poll that suggests the public is demanding more information, and in the absence thereof, the public exhibits contradictions between its preferred goals and a quick end to the war. The explanation is a non sequitur.

One reason for the contradictions is that the poll asks each question as though it were free from any context. Respondents are not asked to evaluate each goal in light of possible cost. If, for example, regime change is a goal of the war, how long should the US continue to press for that change, given the likely cost in money and lives?

The poll lists several goals, and each one might seem pretty appealing—assuming it could be reached. Respondents hear a goal and say, sure, it’s important, without having to confront the inevitable trade-offs. Reporting such responses as though the public is actually demanding the US pay the costs to achieve regime change, or to make the Iranian people free and safe, is a wild distortion of what the poll has actually measured.

Keep reading

Is Trump hooked on ‘war porn’? The disturbing rumours about what really goes on in the Situation Room… and why it makes the President think he’s winning

President Donald Trump would like the world to think a ceasefire with Iran is still possible. But within the bowels of the Pentagon and the White House, his military commanders are preparing something very different.

Anonymous defence department sources are warning us to expect ‘the final blow’ – a massive air, sea and land assault to open the Strait of Hormuz, save the world economy and crush Tehran’s resistance once for and all.

The plans are shrouded in mystery of course. The scope and the timetable keep shifting. The only certainty is that the action, when it takes place, will be recorded on camera and the explosion-filled footage will be edited into short video compilations to impress the Commander-in-Chief.

War is a deadly business but, for Trump, life inside the campaign headquarters is a non-stop video game.

Officials from US Central Command are not only obliged to ensure that America’s increasingly complex operations in the Middle East run smoothly. According to high-level sources, the top brass must also, on a daily basis, feed their screen-addicted President a satisfying stream of ‘stuff blowing up’.

Ever since Operation Epic Fury began one month ago with the first bombings of Iran, Trump’s workday routine has included regular sit-downs amid the oak panels and big screens of the newly renovated White House Situation Room alongside his close advisers.

There, in every session, the team is reportedly shown ‘strike montages’ which, lasting two or three minutes, feature satellite or aircraft footage of Iranian targets being pulverised into smoke and dust. Not all of them, of course. America’s warplanes and missiles have struck some 10,000 targets in the last four weeks, so there is not time to review every action. The videos are more of a highlights package.

There’s said to be a ‘written component’ to these briefings, but everybody knows that Trump is a visual creature.

Keep reading

U.S. Is Scattering Landmines From Air Near Iranian Missile Bases

The United States military is scattering landmines from the air near Iranian missile bases to hunt launchers, and Iranian media has already reported civilian casualties.

The accusations first came on March 26 from Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, which shared photos of what appear to be BLU-91/B scatterable anti-tank landmines.

“These explosive packages resemble ready-made canned food, are somewhat larger than tuna cans, and contain explosives that detonate after being opened, causing casualties,” Tasnim wrote on Telegram. “These packages have been dropped in the skies over the southern suburbs of Shiraz, especially in the village of Kafari, and unfortunately have caused the martyrdom of several people in these areas.”

Canadian lawyer and activist Dimitri Lascaris — who is currently in Shiraz in the southwestern Iranian province of Fars — shared footage showing the remains of similar landmines that exploded right between homes in Kafari, and at least three others some two kilometers away from the entrance to what is reported to be Shiraz South Missile Base, an Iranian “missile city.”

The landmines were likely scattered there to hit any launcher leaving the base, which had been already bombarded by the U.S.

This is the first time such a weapon has been used against Iran since the start of the American-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic around a month ago.

Keep reading