Tag: iran

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

The US-Israel Wars on Iran: Follow the Money

Like most of America’s wars in West Asia, the current joint U.S.-Israel attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran is about securing control over the region’s energy resources and preserving oil currency policies; practices that have fueled its expansive economy since the end of the Second World War.

Ultimately, this conflict, which has sent shockwaves through the global economy, boils down to who will reign in West Asia, control the world’s energy lifeline, and dictate the rules of global finance.

Beneath the veneer of geopolitical diplomacy and rhetoric about global order, the true catalyst for U.S. wars in the Persian Gulf – from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the current Iran war – has always been monetary supremacy, “money.” They have been rooted in oil revenue, debt leverage, and the staggering economic stakes of global energy and currency dominance.

Washington’s hardline stance, economic strangulation and military interventions  have been designed to enforce compliance. Countries, like Iran, that resist U.S. hegemony face severe financial and military pressures, because their defiance challenges America’s regional security architecture and unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Since the 1970s, the “petrodollar system” has been the invisible engine of American prosperity and power.  However, the economic scaffolding that has buoyed its global hegemony is fraying, as geopolitical shifts and de-dollarization trends gradually erode the U.S. dollar’s absolute grip on global energy markets.

To make sense of how we reached this point, it is important to consider how the U.S. dollar achieved its global dominance and shaped our current economic reality.

In June 1974, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark economic and military cooperation agreement, establishing what has come to be known as the “petrodollar system.”

This consequential bargain was born in an era of political and economic uncertainty – inflation, Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. With the U.S. economy in a nosedive, then-President Richard Nixon, anxious to maintain the global demand for dollars, persuaded the Saudi government to finance America’s debt with its petroleum wealth.  He convinced them to price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars and to invest their surplus oil profits in U.S. Treasury bonds.  In exchange, Washington agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons and protection.  By 1975, all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were pricing their oil in dollars.

The Saudi policy of pricing crude exclusively in U.S. dollars compelled all purchasing nations to convert their native currencies before making purchases.  Increased international demand for the dollar made it the world’s singular reserve currency and preferred medium of exchange.  To meet the increased need, Washington simply fired up the printing presses.

Over the years, Washington’s staunch support of the repressive Saudi regime has been driven by a strategic imperative: to ensure that its client state remains committed to the 1974 bargain.

This favorable pricing and trading arrangement has allowed Washington to entail massive deficits, to borrow and spend with abandon without triggering financial collapse. It has financed America’s numerous military adventures and provided the tools to wield economic sanctions and enforce its foreign policy.

Although a web of motives have fueled Washington’s interventions in West Asia, punishing currency dissenters was prominent in its past wars in Iraq and Libya.

Keep reading

US Official Says Striking Iran Was Intended to “Maintain The Ceasefire”

Shortly after midnight, the United States struck Iran’s southern port city of Bandar Abbas, which is home to a naval base. A US official described the actions as “measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire.”

In addition to the strikes, the US official told media outlets that American forces shot down four Iranian kamikaze drones that “posed a threat around the Strait of Hormuz” and had also struck a ground control station in Bandar Abbas that “was about to launch a fifth drone.”

Previously, there had been reports of the US striking Iranian naval vessels with fighter jets. The US called these attacks “self-defense,” while Iran called them a ceasefire violation.

The IRGC later released a statement saying it targeted a US base involved in the earlier strike on a site near Bandar Abbas Airport. “The aggressor bears full responsibility for the consequences,” the statement said, putting the blame on the US.

The current ceasefire has held since April 8th, as the US and Iran continue negotiations to end the war.

Keep reading

The Fragile US-Iran MOU and the Limits of the Trump-Netanyahu Partnership

As the fragile ceasefire hangs over the Middle East, two longtime allies who once seemed inseparable are now locked in a tense standoff. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, launched this war with what looked like perfect coordination. But roughly a hundred days later, it has become a messy arena of personal friction, clashing strategies, and a very public tug-of-war over how – and when – it should end. Trump wants a quick victory and a deal he can sell as a historic win back home. Netanyahu sees the conflict as a once-in-a-generation chance to crush Iran’s threats for good and is in no mood to back down easily.

It all began in late February 2026. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes hammered Iranian targets with waves of missiles and airstrikes. In his first statements, Trump spoke of the “death of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and urged Iranians to rise up against the regime. Netanyahu set even more ambitious goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, weakening its proxy forces across the region, and perhaps even regime change. In those early days, the two leaders appeared completely aligned. Trump pictured the operation as something short and decisive, reminiscent of his past “maximum pressure” campaigns. He hoped it would drive down oil prices, boost the American economy, and deliver him a major political trophy.

The battlefield, however, refused to cooperate with the script. Iran proved far more resilient than expected. Fighting spilled into Lebanon, Hezbollah got involved, and Trump’s diplomatic back-channel talks with Tehran suddenly looked shaky. Almost overnight, the early harmony gave way to visible strain. Trump quickly began looking for an honorable off-ramp. For him, war was always a tool for negotiation – a means to an end. Netanyahu, however, faced intense domestic pressure in Israel. With critics nipping at his heels and a fragile right-wing coalition to maintain, he viewed the conflict as a historic opportunity to deliver decisive blows against Iran’s infrastructure and cut off support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Reports from Israeli security cabinet meetings suggest Netanyahu even warned that Israel might continue alone if necessary, without full American backing.

The rift turned sharply personal in recent days. After Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward northern Israel. Israel responded by hitting Iranian defensive sites and missile fuel facilities. Trump was openly furious about the escalation. In an interview with the Financial Times, he declared, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.” He claimed to have warned Netanyahu that if the fighting continued unchecked, Israel could soon find itself standing alone.

Accounts of a heated phone call between the two leaders have since leaked. Sources describe Trump using strong language, reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and accusing him of undermining American diplomacy. People close to the White House say Trump shouted that he was saving Netanyahu, that without him Israel would be isolated and hated internationally. Netanyahu apparently postponed a planned new round of strikes on Tehran following that conversation. Back in Israel, his critics accused him of caving to Washington. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot even released a campaign-style video featuring Trump’s voice, implying that Netanyahu does whatever the American president wants.

Trump later tried to soften the story in interviews with the BBC and various podcasts. He admitted he had been “a little upset” about the continued fighting in Lebanon because it was disrupting his negotiations with Iran. Yet multiple American and Israeli sources confirm the pressure from Washington was real and effective. Using America’s leverage – military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover – Trump has leaned hard on his counterpart.

The motivations driving each man run deep and differ sharply. Trump, mindful of war fatigue among American voters, is hunting for an agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, frees hostages, and brings down gas prices at American pumps. He approaches foreign policy like a businessman: apply maximum pressure, strike a deal, and exit with something to show for it. This culminated in the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which extends the ceasefire for 60 days, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, provides for sanctions relief and release of frozen assets tied to compliance, and sets the stage for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu operates in a different reality. For him, anything short of severely degrading Iran’s capabilities would leave the job half-done. Any agreement reached too quickly, he believes, would be temporary and dangerous. In private sessions, he has stressed that Israel must be prepared to act in its own defense even without complete U.S. support.

The disagreement is particularly clear in Lebanon. Israeli operations in the south have complicated Trump’s diplomatic track with Tehran. Netanyahu insists that without a heavy blow to Iran’s proxies, the Islamic Republic will simply regroup and threaten Israel again. Trump, on the other hand, sees every extra week of fighting as an obstacle to the deal he wants to close. The MOU has further highlighted these tensions, with Israel expressing reservations and continuing certain operations while the U.S. pushes the broader framework forward.

Their once-warm personal relationship has also grown complicated. For years, Trump called Netanyahu a “friend” and “great partner.” Now his tone carries a sharper, almost condescending edge. Netanyahu, who has always emphasized Israel’s independent decision-making, finds himself walking a tightrope between domestic political survival and the vital lifeline of American support. Analysts describe the dynamic as much psychological as political. Trump pushes with his trademark blunt force and threats. Netanyahu resists with iron will and careful calculations about his own political future.

The consequences of this split reach well beyond the two men. If Trump brokers a relatively soft deal with Iran via the MOU, Netanyahu might view it as betrayal and launch unilateral operations anyway. Conversely, if Netanyahu drags the war out, Trump could restrict logistical and intelligence support, leaving Israel in a difficult spot. Iran is already trying to exploit the visible daylight between Washington and Jerusalem to deepen the divide. Inside Israel, the public is tired of war but many still back Netanyahu’s hard line. In the United States, the conflict remains deeply unpopular, and Trump faces growing pressure to bring it to an end.

For now, a shaky ceasefire holds under the new U.S.-Iran MOU framework, but tensions simmer just beneath the surface. Trump insists he remains in control and that Netanyahu will ultimately do what he asks. Netanyahu, in public statements, continues to stress Israel’s readiness to defend its interests with or without full dependence on Washington. The history of the Middle East is littered with wars that were easy to start but agonizingly hard to finish. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu – once a symbol of ironclad solidarity – has become a mirror reflecting conflicting national interests and differing priorities.

What is decided in the Oval Office and in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem will shape not only the outcome of this war but potentially the future pattern of U.S.-Israel relations for years to come. The region waits, watching closely.

Keep reading

Senate Shoots Down Resolution to Limit Trump’s Military Authority Over Iran

By a single vote, the Senate shot down a proposal on Tuesday that would have reined in President Donald Trump’s ability to use military force against Iran without Congress’s approval.

The vote fell just one vote short of advancing with 48-47. Republican Senators Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul voted with the Democrats. On the flip side, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) crossed the aisle to vote alongside the Republican majority against the bill.

Introduced by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), the resolution sought to require congressional approval for continued U.S. military action involving Iran. Warnock had urged Republicans to vote for it, arguing that Congress shouldn’t just sit back and let the president make all the decisions on foreign wars.

The vote occurred as lawmakers pressed the White House for details about an agreement Trump announced Sunday between Washington and Tehran that he has promoted as a path toward ending months of fighting.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump declared on Truth Social.

Members of Congress are still completely in the dark about the agreement, leading to a push on the administration for transparency. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said lawmakers are demanding more details on how the arrangement actually works. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, agreements related to Iran’s nuclear program must be submitted to Congress for review before sanctions relief can take effect.

Although the measure did not advance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats are continuing discussions surrounding a separate proposal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and are attempting to secure additional Republican support before bringing it up again.

Keep reading

Military doesn’t know how many recruits hold citizenship in China, Iran, Russia or other non-NATO states

The Canadian Armed Forces has recruited nearly 3,000 permanent residents since opening enlistment to non-citizens in late 2022, but military officials admit they do not track the foreign citizenships of those recruits.

The disclosure came in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP Scott Anderson regarding the CAF’s recruitment of permanent residents.

According to the Department of National Defence, the military enrolled 1,844 permanent residents into the regular force and another 1,017 into the reserve force between December 2022 and May 2026, for a total of 2,861 recruits.

Recruitment accelerated dramatically over the past year, with more than 1,800 permanent residents joining during the 2025-26 fiscal year alone.

The military also revealed that permanent residents are permitted to serve in dozens of occupations, including infantry, artillery, combat engineering, logistics, military police, intelligence-related roles, aerospace operations, naval positions and a variety of technical trades.

But when Anderson asked how many of those permanent residents were citizens of countries outside NATO, the government said it simply doesn’t know.

“The Canadian Armed Forces does not centrally record members’ citizenship of countries other than Canada,” the department replied.

The admission means the military cannot say how many permanent-resident recruits hold citizenship in countries such as China, Iran, Russia, Pakistan or any other non-NATO state.

The department also acknowledged that it cannot determine how many of those recruits have since become Canadian citizens because that information is not tracked in a way that can be readily reported.

The figures come as the CAF continues to grapple with a recruiting crisis and personnel shortages. In an effort to boost numbers, the military opened many occupations to permanent residents in 2022, ending a longstanding preference for Canadian citizens.

Since then, 292 permanent-resident recruits have already left the CAF, including 234 regular force members and 58 reservists.

While the CAF can provide detailed breakdowns of where permanent residents serve and what ranks they hold, it cannot say how many are citizens of foreign countries outside Canada’s military alliances.

Keep reading

Deal Doubts Arise As Lebanese, Iranian Officials Say US Must Rein In Israel To Secure Regional Peace

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, held a call earlier, urging the U.S. to compel Israel to end its bloody war on Lebanon, stop home demolitions, and withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory, according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency.

Iranian officials earlier said that any agreement with the US aimed at peace requires Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon. 

AA continued:

The call came during a phone call between Berri and Qalibaf in which they discussed the latest regional developments following a US-Iran agreement to end their war all on fronts, including Lebanon, according to the Lebanese state news agency NNA.

The two officials also reviewed “the military and political developments related to the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, particularly the clause concerning ending the Israeli war on Lebanon,” the agency said.

They stressed “the need for the United States, the guarantors of the memorandum of understanding and the international community to assume their responsibilities by compelling Israel to end its war, stop demolishing villages, respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and immediately withdraw from the territories it has occupied.”

Meanwhile, I24NEWS Hebrew reporter Guy Azriel wrote on X, “I can now confirm that Israel formally requested access to the Iran MoU and was denied. A remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance.”

Keep reading

Israel not Iran is major nuclear threat in Middle East – professor

The major nuclear danger facing the Middle East originates not from Iran but from Israel, Professor Theodore Postol, a former Science and Policy Adviser on Strategic Nuclear Issues to the Chief of Naval Operations, has told RT. The expert warned that the leadership in West Jerusalem had placed the Jewish state on an increasingly perilous course.

Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal, although authorities in West Jerusalem have consistently refused to either confirm or deny the allegations. The issue of Iran’s nuclear program has served as the justification for launching strikes against Iran earlier this year.

“Do not think Iran is the big nuclear threat, is the big nuclear instability in the Middle East, Israel is,” the prominent MIT physicist said during an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi, which aired on Friday.

Postol noted that Israel’s leadership pushed the country into a situation where even its own military commanders are warning that their forces are “on the ropes” and have reached the limits of what they can do.

Citing reports, the former strategic adviser to Pentagon said that Israeli military leaders have told PM Benjamin Netanyahu that they “cannot do any more,” adding that the country is suffering heavy troop losses.

Postol said he found Trump’s apparent fear of nuclear weapons somewhat reassuring, describing it as a positive trait. The expert said that Trump is “extremely horrified and afraid of nuclear weapons, which is good,” adding that he believes the head of state would be warned that any decision to use such capabilities would “open a box that none of us want to see opened.”

Keep reading

The MoU Is Not the Final ‘Deal’

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced on Sunday that the U.S. and Iran had reached a “Peace Deal.” Immediately following Sharif’s post on X, President Donald Trump seconded this news:

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

As the media is reacting to the flurry of updates, there is an air of optimism that I fear is blinding many in the public, and the financial markets, to the truth about this deal. There is a crucial detail that the commentator class seems to be largely missing, outside of a few reliable voices:

This “deal” is a Memorandum of Understanding, not a comprehensive “Iran deal” as Trump keeps claiming.

Based on the details being reported, it essentially saves the most complicated issues for later and would establish a 60-day ceasefire period to discuss these points in greater depth. The main issue, Iran’s nuclear enrichment, has not been discussed in any technical way up to this point.

Despite Trump’s claims that “We will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States,” no such agreement has been reached regarding the details of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.

Even as this deal was announced, we still have no clarity on the status of the nuclear file in these discussions. Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday:

“‘We’ll get the nuclear dust later on when we’re ready to go in and do it. I’d say over the next month or two, there’s no rush,’ he said. He called it ‘harmless.’”

Besides the fact that this statement contradicts months of propaganda on the “imminent threat” posed by Iran, this signals that details on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile have not been worked out, despite Trump’s claims to the contrary.

This agreement also doesn’t set terms on Iran’s missile or drone programs, nor does it discuss Iran’s support for their regional proxies. This has led many prominent neoconservative media voices to criticize the deal, saying that it won’t ensure that Iran is sufficiently weakened in the region.

Keep reading