Tag: iran

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

Who’s the Weak Link? The New York Times Strikes Again

I love getting The New York Times daily summary of the news. It makes for great hilarity.

Here’s today’s example:

Top News
Lebanon Emerges as Weak Link in U.S.-Iran Deal to End War

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, once seen as a secondary front to the American-Israeli war on Iran, has become one of the main obstacles to ending it.

It’s not Lebanon that’s the weak link here – it’s Israel.

Israel is the attacker. The aggressor. The country that wants to scupper the MOU between the USA and Iran. Everyone knows this – except the NYT, apparently.

I like too how the NYT describes it as the “American-Israeli war on Iran.” At the very least, it should be Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.

And when was Lebanon a “secondary front” to the USA? America has no desire to seize land and water in southern Lebanon. That goal is entirely Israel’s, as is its fight against Hezbollah, which is responding to Israeli aggression.

The Iran War has been a huge loser (to put it in Trumpian terms) for the U.S., and only Israel seeks to prolong it. Again, who’s the weak link in the U.S.-Iran deal to end the war?

I’ve been playing with Trumpian language to describe the Iran War and its outcome. As Trump might say, it’s been a defeat for America the likes of which we’ve never seen before. No other defeat comes close.

I think Trump finally understands that. The question is, will “weak link” Israel let him withdraw or will the war become even more catastrophic?

Keep reading

The Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining: Trump, Bibi, and the Neocons Got Their Clocks Cleaned

If you don’t think the Donald inhabits an alternative universe – just set your mandibles loose to chomp on his most recent missive. According to history’s most gifted practitioner of the Art of the Deal, only one thing really counts with respect to his Paperless Invite for Iran to join yet another round of negotiations: Namely, making good on their pledge to “never, ever” get a nuke, which they never, ever, ever actually had or had even pursued:

Trump: “This agreement is about one thing — that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never ever ever. The rest of it is irrelevant, frankly.”

And just in case anyone missed the point, he further insisted that the real bad stuff that supposedly provoked the US/Israel attack in the first place – the 420 kilograms of 60% HEUs – and which the Donald had been on the verge sending in ground troops and Caterpillar earth-movers to retrieve, doesn’t matter so much any more, either!

Trump is backing away from getting Iran’s enriched material: “You could make the case, why even bother? It’s not very valuable stuff.”

That’s right. It is plain as day that the Donald is laying the ground work for a final “deal” with Iran that contains nothing more than a notional “No Nukes” pledge, gussied up by some variation of JCPOA Light.

That is, an agreement about:

  • the length in months and years of a moratorium on Iran’s fuel grade (3.67%) enrichment operations in support of its civilian nuclear power plant.
  • the scale of these civilian enrichment operations in terms of facilities and numbers and types of permitted centrifuges once they restart.
  • the intrusiveness of a renewed IAEA inspection regime.
  • the “snap-back” mechanisms designed to keep the mullahs on the straight and narrow of the overall Peace Plan.

Needless to say, the Obama folks will be proven to have done a far better job the first time around during their arduous negotiations of 2013-2015 than whatever cockamamie version emerges from a final deal that the Donald must and will sign in the shadows of the upcoming November Congressional elections.

Keep reading

Iran Sentences Singer Parastoo Ahmadi to 74 Lashings for Performing Without a Hijab

An Iranian singer, along with her production team, has been sentenced to 74 lashings for performing a patriotic song without a hijab in a viral video.

In 2024, Parastoo Ahmadi, age 29, livestreamed a video of her singing the patriotic song Az Khoone Javanane Vatan (From the Blood of the Youth of the Homeland) that went viral, generating millions of views. She and several musicians who performed with her was briefly detained before being released, but according to court documents obtained by The Guardian, she received a harsh and brutal punishment by the regime for not wearing a hijab.

According to court documents, the criminal court of Qom province sentenced the artists to flogging, a two-year ban on leaving the country and a two-year ban on engaging in artistic activities on charges that include offending public decency through the production and publication of “vulgar and immoral content” online.

Although the official judiciary news agency has yet to publish the ruling, rights groups and lawyers who reviewed the documents said the pattern of arrests and legal cases against artists publicly defying the regime reflects a broader effort to deter cultural dissent.

Bahar Ghandehari, the director of advocacy at the US-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said that the punishment shows the severity of Iran’s human rights abuses.

Keep reading

The $300 Billion Mirage: How the U.S.-Iran Deal is destined to fail because Israel won’t stop the bloodshed in Lebanon

Vice President JD Vance told CBS News that Iran “could have access” to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, provided they “honor their end of the obligation.” Trump immediately denounced reports of a $300 billion payment as “Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats,” writing on Truth Social that “Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon!”

This contradiction between the administration’s messaging and the reality of the deal raises serious concerns. The fund, as described by Vance, would be a massive financial injection into an Iranian economy that has been crippled by sanctions, a move that critics argue could free up resources for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump insists the deal is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the timing is suspicious. Commercial oil inventories are already 7 million barrels below the early 2022 trough and declining at a weekly rate of 11 million barrels, according to Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh.

With the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve releases structured as loans rather than supply additions, the Trump Administration’s energy policies have left the country vulnerable. Now Trump appears to be negotiating from a position of weakness, offering financial lifelines to a regime that has repeatedly violated international agreements.

Israel’s rejection: The most dangerous wildcard

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked his political future on his relationship with Trump, but that relationship is now a liability. The U.S.-Iran deal leaves the Islamic Republic intact, an unpalatable prospect for Israelis across the political spectrum. Netanyahu, facing an election this fall, must contend with an agreement that effectively legitimizes Iran’s regional influence.

Israeli officials have already declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” and troops will remain in southern Lebanon despite Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as part of the deal. The situation is dangerously volatile: Iran has linked the deal’s survival to Israeli compliance, while Israel has made clear it will pursue its own security interests.

If Netanyahu feels cornered politically, a preemptive strike against Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities could trigger the exact scenario the deal is supposed to prevent. Iran has shore batteries on the islands of Hormuz and Abu Musa, missile launchers in Bandar Abbas and Jask, and the capability to block the strait within hours. The Houthis have already demonstrated in the Red Sea how easily a determined adversary can disrupt global shipping with relatively primitive weapons. Iran’s arsenal is far more sophisticated, including seaborne drones and missiles that could sink any ship attempting to navigate through. History shows that these people refuse to capitulate to one another, and years of resentment and distrust and the war in 2026 have only renewed the hatred toward one another. The U.S. Iran Deal seeks a  buyout to keep the peace, but the deal will be temporary like all the others that followed it.

Keep reading

Israel And Hezbollah Trade Fire In Southern Lebanon, Deaths On Both Sides, Israeli Media Goes After Trump, Vance Cancels Swiss Iranian Negotiation Trip As Violence Rages, Iran Says Deal In Jeopardy

Hezbollah fired missiles into Northern Israel yesterday, which were intercepted by Israeli missile systems. Israeli leadership responded angrily to the U.S.-Iran peace deal as the IDF continued operations in Southern Lebanon. Multiple Israeli soldiers were killed south of Beirut as Israeli forces continue to consolidate positions and go after Shia proxy army targets in the south. The IDF continues to be challenged by FPV drones, which are effective against armor and infantry in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rages on Israeli TV:

“Nobody can tell us what to do, and we’ve proven it. The entire first line of Lebanese villages has been destroyed.  We are destroying all the houses. The residents will never see them standing before their eyes again.

“In Lebanon, the 200,000 residents who lived in the “security zone” are not returning.  Not one of them is returning.

“We are fighting there. We do not need al-Julani. Al-Julani, the terrorist in a suit, does not need to come and help us. We know Syria well. He is not going to help us in Lebanon. He should stay in Syria, not interfere with us, and not make us interfere with him.

“Do you know what really hurts the jihadists? Maybe it hurts them when you kill them personally, but they don’t care as much about that.  What really hurts them is when you take territory from them and destroy their homes—and that’s what we did.

“You remember the raids? They would go in and come out.  We go in, destroy, and do not leave. That’s what we’re doing now in Lebanon

“The IDF must be on the other side of the border, beyond the border, defending the State of Israel against jihadist organizations in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Gaza. We will not move from the “security zones”—not in Syria, not in Gaza, and not in Lebanon.

“Why are we on the other side in Syria?  Because we need to be there to protect ourselves against what we see in Syria.

“We are already in more than 60% of Gaza, and all of it is destroyed. It is destroyed above ground and underground. That is the difference in the approach we introduced.”

Keep reading

Trump says oil reserves would run out in 4 weeks without Iran deal, risking ‘bedlam’

President Trump said Wednesday that oil reserves could have run out in four weeks if the Strait of Hormuz were not opened.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said in France while at the Group of Seven summit, discussing the recent memorandum of understanding with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It’s not entirely clear whether Trump was referring to U.S. or global oil inventories. The White House declined to elaborate, referring The Hill back to Trump’s original remarks.

In recent weeks, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization of oil consuming countries, has warned of declining oil reserves.

IEA head Fatih Birol said last month that oil reserve releases were helping to keep up the market supply, but he warned the reserves “are not endless.”

He indicated at the time that because of the war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, only a few weeks of commercial inventories were remaining. 

The IEA also warned in May that oil demand would exceed supply this year.

At the start of the war, both the U.S. and other IEA countries announced they would release oil from their strategic reserves, putting 400 million additional barrels onto the market.

As part of the announcement, the Trump administration said it would release 172 million barrels from its strategic reserve. The releases were set to occur over a 120-day period.

At the time, the U.S. strategic reserve comprised about 415 million barrels of oil, meaning the release of an additional 172 million would eventually bring the reserve down to about 243 million unless barrels were added or subtracted for other reasons.

Keep reading