Tag: iran

Americans Want Peace, Israel Wants War

America wants peace. Israel wants war. The great majority of Americans want an end to the war against Iran. The great majority in Congress just want more contributions from the Israel Lobby and its supporters.

Now, most members of Congress are really squirming. They know that most of their constituents are fed up with foreign wars and want this stupid war in Iran over, the sooner the better.

But they are afraid to criticize Israel’s war for fear of the Israel Lobby steering big campaign contributions against them. Their silence is deafening.

Most members are trying to keep quiet. Almost no one other than Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and the Israel First crowd are enthusiastic about this war.

The only ones speaking out strongly in favor of it are members who have received and/or who hope to receive millions in campaign contributions from the Lobby like Senators Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Tom Cotton and others.

They didn’t even criticize Israel when it was starving and killing more than 20,000 children in Gaza. Congress would have rushed to pass a resolution of condemnation if it had been done in any other country than Israel.

But the killing goes on, even during so-called ceasefires. Thousands have been killed over this past year by Israeli forces in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.

We don’t hear and see as much about all this killing because Israel was losing the public relations battle, and pro-Israel billionaires bought up significant parts of the national media that they did not already own.  Lesser-known conservative “influencers” and podcasters were given money, and 1,000 ministers were given free trips to Israel. Even TikTok was bought because its coverage was supposedly causing too many teenagers to have anti-Israel opinions.

However, all the pro-Israel propaganda has not worked so far. Even President Trump has apparently gotten angry at times with Netanyahu, telling him at one point that he shouldn’t blow up an entire apartment building to get at one person.

And Vice President Vance told the world in a press conference that Israel’s cabinet should realize that President Trump was the only world leader still supporting  Netanyahu and that two-thirds of all the military equipment and ammunition used by the IDF in these latest wars had been paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

The very few members of Congress and commentators who are criticizing President Trump for giving into Iran in the Memorandum he signed need to be asked what their alternative is.

Keep reading

US strikes Iran again, as Trump threatens the country “will no longer exist”

US warplanes bombed Iranian coastal radar and air defense sites on Friday and again on Saturday, striking 10 targets near the Strait of Hormuz in the second wave.

The US attacks are the latest in a series of military escalations since the announcement of a “ceasefire” on June 17, when US President Donald Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran at Versailles.

After ordering Saturday’s strikes, Trump threatened to annihilate the country. The United States, he wrote, “will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

As he has done repeatedly, Trump is using genocidal language, threatening to annihilate a country and exterminate large portions of its population. As with his earlier outbursts, the vow to make Iran “no longer exist” carries an implicit threat to use nuclear weapons.

The attacks and threats come amid a deepening political crisis within the American ruling class over the ceasefire Trump announced on June 17. In the 11 days since, the deal has come under sustained attack from dominant sections of both the Republican and Democratic parties, which have denounced it as a surrender to Tehran.

Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said it “negotiates away the victories” of the war. The Democrats condemned the agreement as having failed to secure the interests of US imperialism. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that under the deal,“Iran is stronger and America is less safe.”

Keep reading

The Islamabad Memorandum and the Decline of the Paradigm of Absolute Victory

Almost every war produces the same immediate question: who won? Yet the more consequential question is whether either side can convert battlefield pressure into a political order it can sustain. The Islamabad Memorandum, signed by the United States and Iran on June 17, brings that distinction into sharp relief. It is a 60-day framework linking an end to military operations and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz to negotiations over sanctions, Iran’s nuclear program, and a broader political settlement. Its importance lies less in the document’s promises than in the reality that produced it: neither Washington nor Tehran could credibly claim that continuing the war would deliver the political outcome each sought.

This does not mean military power has ceased to matter. In conflicts where both sides can impose serious costs and frustrate the other’s objectives, the ability to damage an adversary is not the same as the ability to compel it. The Islamabad Memorandum is evidence of power’s limits when it cannot be translated into a durable political order.

The framework reflects those limits. It envisages commercial navigation through Hormuz, an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, temporary sanctions relief, and talks on Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile under international supervision. Each element acknowledges that neither side achieved its preferred end state through force. The United States did not secure a stable regional order by military pressure alone; Iran did not compel Washington to abandon every demand merely by raising the costs of escalation. Security, nuclear questions, economic restrictions, and maritime access must instead be negotiated together.

For Washington, this is the central strategic lesson. The United States has never lacked the capacity to strike Iranian targets or impose material costs. The question was whether that superiority could produce a political arrangement that reduced risk without drawing America into an open-ended regional war. Iraq and Afghanistan offered a familiar warning: tactical success can destroy infrastructure and degrade capabilities, but it cannot settle rival security claims or force an adversary to accept a political future it regards as intolerable. In the Iranian case, additional strikes could have increased pressure, but they also risked higher energy costs, disruption to shipping, wider instability, and a conflict with no clear endpoint.

Diplomacy, then, should not be described simply as American retreat. It is an admission that an objective becomes less attainable as the cost of pursuing it rises. A strategy that can keep escalating but cannot define a credible political end state is not a strategy of victory. The memorandum gave Washington a way to pursue verification and regional stability without assuming that force could resolve every issue on American terms.

Iran reached a parallel conclusion from a different position. Tehran demonstrated that it could not be excluded cheaply from the regional security equation. Its capacity to impose costs on shipping, energy markets, and U.S. interests made a purely coercive settlement difficult. But resilience is not identical to the ability to impose one’s full political will. Iran could raise the price of war; it could not assume that prolonged confrontation would automatically produce sanctions relief, economic recovery, or a stable security environment. Negotiation therefore offered Tehran not capitulation, but a route to protect core interests while reducing pressures that military endurance alone could not remove.

This convergence of limitations gives the Islamabad Memorandum its historical significance. The document does not resolve decades of disputes, and it would be premature to treat it as the beginning of a settled regional order. Its provisions remain vulnerable to disagreement over sequencing, verification, sanctions implementation, and the future of nuclear talks. The recent suspension of Iranian participation in technical discussions and the subsequent agreement to halt mutual strikes show how fragile the arrangement remains. A fragile agreement is not yet a strategic transformation.

Keep reading

Trump Threatens “the Islamic Republic of Iran Will No Longer Exist” Following Collapse of Ceasefire – CENTCOM Releases Footage of US Strikes

President Trump on Saturday threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth after US forces launched strikes against the country for its violations of the 60-day memorandum of understanding and ceasefire.   

“It is very possible that they will never learn!” Trump said, noting that Iranian missile, drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites were hit by US aircraft.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” he continued. “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

United States aircraft just struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites, for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN! It is very possible that they will never learn! There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist! President DJT

Keep reading

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