Zarif accuses IAEA’s Grossi of aiding war crimes, calls for removal
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
Former Iranian Foreign Minister and ex-Vice President for Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, issued a scathing condemnation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary-General Rafael Grossi on Friday, accusing him of facilitating war crimes through politically charged actions and rhetoric.
In a statement posted on his official X account, Zarif said Grossi had “abetted the slaughter of innocents” by issuing what he described as a fictitious IAEA report, and warned that the director-general is now laying the groundwork for further crimes against Iran.
Grossi accused of promoting false narratives
Zarif sharply criticized Grossi’s recent suggestion that Iran might be concealing uranium at World Heritage Sites in Isfahan, calling the claim “reckless musing” and part of a broader campaign to provoke further military escalation. “@rafaelmgrossi is now conspiring to abet more war crimes,” Zarif wrote.
The former top diplomat added that the IAEA should remove Grossi from his post, calling him a “disgrace” to the agency and launching the hashtag “#Fire_Grossi” to amplify the demand.
Mounting criticism over IAEA’s politicization
The remarks add to a growing number of Iranians accusing the IAEA of losing its impartiality and enabling acts of aggression by the Israeli occupation and the United States.
This also comes after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Friday that the Iranian Parliament had voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure can be guaranteed.
The decision follows days of mounting tension over the US and the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran says were politically facilitated by the IAEA’s leadership. Araghchi directly blamed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi for contributing to what he called “a sordid state of affairs.”
In a statement published on X, Araghchi accused Grossi of playing a “regrettable role in obfuscating” the fact that the IAEA had closed all past issues with Iran’s nuclear program a decade ago. Instead of upholding that record, Grossi, according to Araghchi, enabled the IAEA Board of Governors to adopt a “politically-motivated resolution” against Iran.
That resolution, Araghchi said, directly set the stage for recent bombings of Iranian nuclear sites by the US and the Israeli occupation.
Iran to defend its sovereignty
Araghchi condemned Grossi’s silence in the face of these attacks, calling it a “betrayal” of his statutory responsibilities. “In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi said.
He further criticized Grossi’s insistence on visiting bombed sites under the pretext of inspections, calling such efforts “meaningless” and “possibly even malign in intent.”
Iran, Araghchi emphasized, reserves the right to take any measures necessary to defend its sovereignty, people, and national interests. He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA would not resume until credible guarantees are in place to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from further attacks.
“The IAEA and its Director-General bear full responsibility for what has transpired,” Araghchi stated, underscoring Iran’s growing distrust of the agency’s impartiality amid a broader climate of Western pressure and aggression.
Norway’s War Profiteers Are Getting Rich Off Europe’s March To Militarism
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 28.06.2025
Norway’s military-industrial complex is cashing in big on Europe’s rearmament frenzy, while ordinary Norwegians face growing socioeconomic pressure, says Russian Ambassador to Oslo Nikolai Korchunov.
Norway raked in over $115 billion in windfall profits during 2022-2023 thanks to soaring gas prices fueled, ironically, by Europe’s decision to ditch reliable Russian energy.
Instead of investing those profits in public welfare, Norwegian leaders are fattening up defense contractors under the banner of “rearmament.”
With former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg now pulling the strings as Norway’s finance minister, the government is prioritizing weapons over welfare and arming the Ukraine regime without a second thought.
All this, while NATO openly prepares for a head-on clash with Russia: Revamping its command, bloating budgets, and shifting from proxy war to potential direct confrontation.
The West waging ‘centuries-old war’ against Moscow – Russia’s top UN diplomat
RT | June 28, 2025
Western nations are using Ukraine as their proxy in a longstanding confrontation with Russia that is deeply rooted in history, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia told RT’s Rick Sanchez.
In an interview on The Sanchez Effect aired on Friday, the diplomat argued that the conflict “should be seen in a larger context.”
“They do not care about Ukraine. This is not a war between Russia and Ukraine,” Nebenzia said. “Ukraine is a proxy in this war. This is a centuries-old war of the West against Russia, starting with the Polish invasion in the 17th century,” he added.
As examples of earlier confrontations, Nebenzia cited Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the 1854–1856 Crimean War, Western military intervention during the Russian Civil War, and the invasion by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. He emphasized that Hitler’s army included not only Germans, but also units drawn from allied countries and occupied territories.
The Ukrainians and “their sponsors” in the West sabotaged the 2014–2015 Minsk accords, which were aimed at ending the conflict between Kiev and the breakaway Donbass republics, the Russian diplomat said. Former French President Francois Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel later admitted the agreement was used by Kiev to buy time and rearm, Nebenzia stated. “We are not going [to fall] into the same trap once again,” he said.
He added that politicians like former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson similarly helped derail the 2022 peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine’s European backers were forced to adjust their position, Nebenzia argued, after US President Donald Trump launched efforts to broker peace and Ukrainian troops began losing more ground.
“They changed their rhetoric from ‘We should inflict strategic defeat on Russia’ to ‘Russia should not win in this war.’ Now they are advocating for a full, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire, which is testimony that they want to shield and protect their proxy, as they are obviously losing on the battlefield,” he said.
At the same time, Nebenzia noted that the resumption of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations earlier this year provides hope that the conflict could be resolved soon.
Cracks in the Alliance: Poland reconsidering Ukraine’s cause?
By Uriel Araujo | June 28, 2025
Poland has long been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies in Europe, offering unwavering support since the beginning of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian full-scale conflict in 2022. From hosting millions of refugees to providing military aid and championing Kyiv’s integration into Western institutions, Poland’s commitment seemed unshakable to many. Yet, recent developments signal a shift: Poles are growing weary of Ukraine, so to speak, and this “Ukrainian fatigue” threatens to reshape regional dynamics at a time when Kyiv is increasingly isolated. Albeit a new development, this had been potentially there for a long time.
A recent survey by IBRiS reveals in fact a stark decline in Polish support for the cause of Ukraine’s ambitions. Only 35% of Poles now believe Warsaw should back Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union (EU), with a mere 37% supporting NATO accession. In contrast, 42% oppose Poland’s endorsement of Kyiv’s path to both institutions—a dramatic reversal from 2022, when 85% and 75% favored EU and NATO membership, respectively. Even more concerningly, from Kyiv’s perspective, 46% of Poles now advocate halting or reducing military aid, a significant departure from the early war fervor. These figures reflect a growing sentiment that Poland’s generosity has stretched thin, compounded by domestic pressures and latent historical grievances.
The roots of this shift are multifaceted. Economically, hosting over a million Ukrainian refugees has somewhat strained Poland’s resources. While many Poles initially welcomed their neighbors with open arms, reports of rising anti-Ukrainian sentiment suggest a fraying social fabric. Refugees have faced verbal abuse and discrimination, with some recounting calls to “go back to Ukraine”. This backlash is not merely economic but also deeply rooted in historical tensions.
The legacy of the Volhynia massacres, where the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—today celebrated in post-Maidan Ukraine as national heroes—committed atrocities against Poles, remains a festering wound, as I wrote last year. Kyiv’s refusal to allow exhumations of victims and its glorification of figures like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, have fueled tensions and Polish resentment. These historical disputes, often downplayed in the West, are not mere academic debates but visceral issues pertaining to the politics of memory, and to identity; they shape public opinion and policy.
Poland’s domestic politics further complicate its foreign policy toward Ukraine. The return of Donald Tusk’s government has prioritized a pro-EU stance, but it faces challenges from a resurgent nationalist right that capitalizes on anti-Ukrainian sentiment also. This internal polarization threatens Tusk’s ability to maintain Poland’s role as a regional leader in supporting Kyiv.
The nationalist revival in Poland mirrors a broader regional trend involving Ukraine’s neighbors, where ethnopolitical frictions play an important role. For instance, Romania and Hungary have both raised concerns over Ukraine’s treatment of their minorities, while Greece has criticized the plight of its ethnic kin under ultranationalist elements in Ukraine (including those with neo-Nazi links). Kyiv’s post-2014 push for a unified national identity, often at the expense of minority rights, has alienated potential allies at a critical juncture. Far from being a mere “Russian talking point”, this is an issue that, to different degrees, hampers Ukraine’s bilateral relations with virtually all of its neighbors—including Slovakia. Writing in 2023, GLOBSEC think-tank researcher Dmytro Tuzhanskyi acknowledges that this “ethnic trap” was a challenge of EU accession talks. The “Ukrainian Question” in fact is a threat to the European bloc itself, as I’ve argued before.
The broader geopolitical context further complicates matters for Kyiv. As Western attention pivots to the Middle East, with conflicts in Gaza and beyond dominating headlines, Ukraine risks fading from the global spotlight. The West’s finite resources—both financial and political—are increasingly stretched, leaving Kyiv to compete for attention and aid. NATO’s expansion, once a “holy cow” topic, finally faces some skepticism in Poland and beyond, in the context of an increasingly divided and scandal-ridden NATO.
The alliance’s eastward push, framed as a bulwark against threats, has not delivered the promised stability. Instead, it has entangled member states in a prolonged conflict with no clear resolution, prompting questions about its strategic value. For Poles, the costs of supporting Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—military, economic, and social—are beginning to outweigh the benefits.
This cooling of Polish support is not an isolated phenomenon but is indeed part of a broader regional fatigue. Ukraine’s aggressive nationalist policies, while aimed at consolidating statehood, have sown discord with neighbors who perceive them as chauvinistic, as mentioned. These tensions, often overshadowed by the larger conflict, play a considerable role in regional dynamics, and Poland, despite its strategic partnership with Ukraine, is not immune to such pressures.
The implications of Poland’s shifting stance are profound. As one of Ukraine’s key advocates in the EU and NATO, a less enthusiastic Poland could weaken Kyiv’s bargaining power in Western capitals. The decline in public support for military aid and integration efforts signals a broader reassessment of Poland’s role in the conflict. If this trend continues, Ukraine may find itself increasingly isolated, caught between a distracted West and strained relations with its neighbors. With Trump attempting to shift the Ukrainian “burden” onto Europe, the EU and NATO (already grappling with internal divisions), may hesitate to keep supporting the cause of Kyiv. Warsaw’s “retreat”, if it comes to that, could really have a domino effect.
This is not to suggest that Poland will “abandon” Ukraine outright. Strategic considerations, including the supposed need for a buffer (and its continental ambitions), should likely keep Warsaw engaged. However, the era of unconditional support is clearly over. Poles are reevaluating their priorities, driven by economic burdens, historical grievances, and a nationalist resurgence that demands a reckoning with the past. For Ukraine, the lesson is clear enough: alienating allies through ultranationalist policies and historical revisionism comes at a steep cost. And Kyiv, by all indications cannot afford to lose allies. Poland’s fatigue is thus a warning—not just for Ukraine but for the broader project of NATO and EU expansion, which risks overreaching in a world of competing crises.
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
The United States Cannot Defeat Iran
By William Schryver – imetatronink – June 27, 2025
How soon people have forgotten that, earlier this year, the US dispatched two carrier strike groups and a half-dozen B-2s (and other USAF assets) to disarm the Yemeni and open the selectively blockaded Red Sea.
They failed. Abysmally. For the second time!
First of all, in 2024, the USS Brave Sir Robin (CVN-69), USS Teddy Bear (CVN-71), and USS Fraidy Abe (CVN-72) gave it a try, only to eventually run away with their tail between their legs. The Brave Sir Robin left behind an F/A-18 at the bottom of the sea.
They were followed up by the USS Trembling Puppy (CVN-75) and the USS Timid Vinny (CVN-70). But they fared no better, with the Trembling Puppy losing two additional F/A-18 fighters over the course of its traumatic tour of the northern Red Sea.
And, not only did the Yemeni increase their score of MQ-9 Reaper drones to 23, they also targeted and credibly threatened both F-35s and B-2s, such that both platforms were summarily withdrawn from the fight for fear of one getting shot down.
Remember, Yemen is absolutely the bottom rung on the escalatory ladder of formidable adversaries.
Anyone who seriously believes the US Navy can operate in Iranian waters is just plain delusional.
Even if no ships got damaged or sunk, they’d still run out of munitions in a couple weeks or less — and they sure as hell won’t be able to reload in Bahrain.
As for an air campaign … well, I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that US/Israeli aircraft penetrated Iranian airspace to any appreciable extent in Act I of this war. Consequently, I am dubious that Iranian medium- and long-range air defenses were even used.
There is also zero credible evidence of top-shelf Iranian air defenses being destroyed.
From all indications, the Iranians were shooting down Israel’s big strike drones with short-range AD. And they shot down several.
The Israeli long-range air-launched ballistic missiles were apparently effective, but they simply don’t have very many of them, and as the war progressed into its second week, we saw fewer and fewer of them with each passing day.
In any case, when Act II of this war gets started (and it won’t be long), it will almost certainly entail penetration of Iranian airspace. And we will see not only the emergence of Iranian long-range AD, but I strongly suspect Russian and/or Chinese mobile air defense systems will suddenly appear on the battlefield.
Those whose calculus of a US/Iran war assumes overwhelming American air superiority will abruptly find the parameters of their equations altered.
The Russians and Chinese are not going to stand idly by and watch the US smash up their important southwest Asia ally in the rapidly emerging multipolar world.
And keep in mind: the US simply cannot logistically sustain a high-intensity air campaign for more than 2-3 weeks. And if even a dozen or so manned US aircraft are shot down, and a couple ships severely damaged … well, that will cause such overwhelming consternation in Washington that it might even result in a coup d’état, or something closely approximating one.
Kremlin responds to prospect of NATO nuclear-capable jets on Russian border
RT | June 27, 2025
Russia sees Estonia’s willingness to host nuclear-capable NATO aircraft as a direct threat to its security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
Responding to recent remarks made by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur welcoming such deployments, Peskov warned that the presence of F-35 fighter jets in the Baltic region would be considered a serious provocation. He criticized Tallinn’s stance as “absurd,” adding that relations with Moscow “can hardly get any worse.”
Pevkur told local media that F-35s, which are capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons, “have already been in Estonia and will soon return again in rotation,” and expressed the country’s readiness to accommodate allied forces using such aircraft.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have hosted NATO fighter rotations since joining the military bloc in 2004. Their airspace is patrolled by allied aircraft due to limited domestic capabilities. NATO’s eastern expansion has long been a point of contention for Russia, which accuses the West of breaking post-Cold War assurances.
During this week’s NATO summit in The Hague, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed the planned purchase of at least 12 F-35A jets, thus restoring the UK’s airborne nuclear deterrent for the first time since the 1990s.
Although the US, UK, and France are the only official nuclear powers within NATO, American nuclear weapons remain stationed in several non-nuclear allied countries. Moscow claims that US-led training of NATO pilots for nuclear missions violates the spirit of non-proliferation agreements.
Citing the need to counter rising threats from NATO near its borders, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and held joint drills with Belarusian forces last year.
Vaccine Makers Signal Fear Over Removal of Neurotoxic Injected Aluminum Ingredient
By Jefferey Jaxen | June 27, 2025
Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb made his ceremonial appearance on CNBC to titrate the public well with Big Pharma talking points in the wake of this week’s ACIP meeting.
After speaking for less than one minute and forty seconds, Gottlieb used the tired, inaccurate slur ‘anti-vaxxer’ four times in a failed attempt to frame an us verse them narrative like it was 2015 again.
With the newly appointed ACIP committee vote to remove the mercury-based preservative thimerosal from the few remaining flu shots, Gottlieb wasted no time circling the wagons to protect the widespread, problematic aluminum adjuvant in several vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule.
His concern was that would be ACIP’s next target. And he’s probably right.
“This is a very safe ingredient” stated Gottlieb regarding the regular injection of aluminum nanoparticles into infants, children and adolescents at scale.
Zero pushback or questions from the interviewer to challenge him per usual.
How settled is the safety science of injecting aluminum in children?
The Informed Consent Action Network sent a legal letter to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2019 demanding any human or animal studies relied upon by these agencies to establish the safety of injected aluminum.
The agencies produced no documents nor could they located a single study showing the safety of aluminum in childhood vaccines.
Meanwhile, a 2021 study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology found that six childhood vaccines contain a statistically significant greater quantity of aluminum adjuvant than is provided for on these products’ labeling. This study promped ICAN to demand the FDA assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information regarding the amount of aluminum adjuvant in their childhood vaccines. The agency has since stonewalled the request.
Here’s the embarrassing, anti-scientific part Gottlieb forgets to mention.
The rationale for injecting aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles into newborns was allowed and justified by a single 2011 study, by a single FDA scientist named Dr. Robert Mitkus.
Author J.B. Handley in his book How to End the Autism Epidemic writes the following about Mitkus’ study:
What would be lost on the average layperson is that the only biological science Dr. Mitkus considered in making his safety assessment was a single study that infused (rather than injected) aluminum citrate (rather than aluminum hydroxide) into adults (rather than babies). It’s hard to put this seemingly minor detail in proper context. In no other drug on the planet (except for vaccines) would safety standards ever be determined without using the actual product (aluminum hydroxide) administered in the proper way (intramuscular injection), into the proper patient population (infants).
World-renowned researchers called out this fact in their 2018 study by stating:
“To date, aluminum adjuvants per se have, perhaps surprisingly, not been the subject of any official experimental investigation, and this being in spite of the well-established neurotoxicity of aluminum.”
Will aluminum adjuvants be ACIP’s next target? Are studies being commissioned by Jay Bhattacharya’s NIH to look at these ingredients and their well-established role in creating chronic disease in American Children? All open questions at the time of this writing.
As for Scott and his industry pals, shots across the bow appear to be signaling that it’s no longer business as usual.
Gottlieb left his position as FDA commissioner only to accept a position on the board of Pfizer in less than three months.
Gottlieb is Big Pharma’s jack-in-the-box who seems to pop up and make noise at key moments when public pressure is applied which threatens bottom line profit margins of their liability-free injectable product lines.
His corporate media residency at CNBC allows for rapid response industry talkings points to roll from his mouth at a moment’s notice whenever his handlers decide to make him dance.
Prior to the pandemic, as questions swirled about a connection between vaccines and autism, Gottleib was there. When asked by the CNBC reporter why parents claim that their children developed autism or “something on the spectrum” right around the time they received their shots, Gottlieb blamed coincidence by saying:
“Children who are gonna display symptoms of autism and other developmental disorders, those start to manifest and become self-evident right around the time kids are getting vaccinated.”
Magic. Like Fauci, Gottleib is his own version of The Science™. What he says is ordained, never questioned during interviews. A continuous appeal to authority. Why? Because Pfizer man said so.
With a little luck, revolving door riders like Gottlieb will be artifacts of a shameful past era. Where U.S. regulatory agencies continually launched their leaders into the waiting arms of the industries they regulated.
Most Americans Believe Israel Has Too Much Influence on US Policy – Poll
Sputnik – 27.06.2025
More than half of Americans believe Israel wields too much influence on US policy, a survey conducted by US research firm Tyson Group showed on Friday.
Specifically, 54% of respondents said that Israel’s influence is excessive, while 27% disagreed with this position, according to the survey.
Among Democrats, 62% agreed with the position, compared to 43% of Republicans and 44% of senior Americans aged 65 and over.
The majority of Americans, 54%, also believe recent US airstrikes significantly set back the development of Iran’s nuclear progam, including 19% who state that it was “completely obliterated,” the survey showed.
Meanwhile, 75% of respondents are concerned that the conflict could escalate into a larger war, while 67% believe that the US could launch new military action against Iran, according to the survey.
The survey was conducted from June 25-26 among 1,027 US adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Ceasefire without terms: Iran’s strategic deterrence in shadow of 9,379 kg
By Amro Allan | Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
12 days of war between Iran and the Israeli-US alliance have ended, not with an agreement, treaty, or even mutual understanding, but with silence. US President Donald Trump announced a unilateral ceasefire following an Israeli request, and after consultation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. Qatar, acting as an intermediary, passed on the message to Tehran, which acknowledged the mediation without committing to any terms. No documents were signed, no concessions were made, and no conditions agreed. What has emerged is a calm devoid of consensus, a tactical pause, not an end to the war.
Yet for all its fragility, this ceasefire reveals something critical: Iran endured, Iran responded, and most significantly, Iran preserved what it considers the cornerstone of its strategic deterrence, its nuclear capability and its sovereignty in the face of overwhelming pressure. And for a nation that has lived through decades of sanctions, threats, and assassinations, survival on its own terms is not defeat, it is a form of victory.
Victory without capitulation
From Tel Aviv and Washington, the war was framed as a swift punitive campaign meant to decapitate Iran’s nuclear programme and reassert Israeli regional dominance. Netanyahu boasted of air superiority, missile interception, and the assassination of key Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. He claimed “Israel” had “dismantled” Iran’s missile programme and brought its nuclear efforts to a halt.
But such triumphalism proved premature, and ultimately misleading. The final missiles fired before the ceasefire originated from Iranian launchers, employing a strategic class of weaponry deployed for the first time in this conflict. Strikes on Tel Aviv, Haifa, and strategic military targets pierced “Israel’s” multi-layered air defence systems and killed seven. These were not symbolic responses; they were calibrated strikes executed under pressure, revealing Tehran’s ability to absorb an attack and immediately retaliate.
From Iran’s perspective, the war did not end in surrender, nor even in compromise. Iranian officials confirmed that while key facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan were targeted, critical material, including an estimated 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium, was relocated to fortified and undisclosed sites before the first missiles struck. Iran suffered damage, but not disarmament. Its ability to resume nuclear enrichment, or even accelerate it, remains fully intact.
The untouched core: 9,379 kilograms
The most recent IAEA report from May 2025 offers the most telling figures: Iran holds 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium at various purities. Of these, 8,840 kilograms are enriched to 5% or less, usable for civilian reactors and medical isotopes. A further 130 kilograms of uranium exists in intermediate purity levels, mostly in scrap form.
The strategic concern, and Tehran’s most potent leverage, lies in the 408.6 kilograms enriched to 60%, a step away from weapons-grade 90% enrichment. According to nuclear experts, this stockpile could provide material for up to nine nuclear warheads if further refined. Iranian officials assert that none of this material was compromised during the bombing campaign and that their pre-emptive relocations prevented a nuclear or environmental catastrophe.
The IAEA has acknowledged that it detected no abnormal radiation levels post-strikes, suggesting no containment breach occurred. However, the Agency has not been granted access to the new locations, a move Tehran justifies as a response to what it sees as an illegitimate and unprovoked military assault on safeguarded civilian nuclear infrastructure.
In this light, Iran’s refusal to disclose further details is not simply about secrecy: it is an assertion of sovereignty. It underscores a consistent Iranian position that nuclear development, so long as it remains within NPT guidelines, is a right, not a bargaining chip.
Strategic deterrence and battlefield lessons
Iran’s response went beyond merely absorbing damage. It turned the battlefield into a proving ground for its missile, drone, and cyber capabilities. Iranian forces launched hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli defences entirely, signalling not just tactical innovation but strategic maturity. It demonstrated that its command-and-control structures remain functional under attack, and that its military doctrine has evolved to anticipate multi-domain warfare.
Equally important is the shift in psychological warfare. For the first time, Iran shattered the long-standing regional norm against directly striking Israeli territory with sustained, high-precision attacks. It was a message: the Islamic Republic is prepared to escalate if pushed, and escalation no longer means allies in Lebanon or Iraq—it means Tehran itself.
“Israel’s” sense of impunity has been challenged. Its air defense failures in intercepting Iranian salvos have exposed critical vulnerabilities, undermining Netanyahu’s claims of “total superiority.” What once was an asymmetric confrontation tilted in “Israel’s” favour has now grown more balanced. Iran may not match “Israel’s” military hardware or American support, but it has altered the rules of engagement and redefined the costs of war.
A Ceasefire or a Countdown?
Like most previous regional confrontations, this ceasefire was not a culmination, it was an intermission. There is no written document, no internationally recognised monitoring framework, and no agreed roadmap for de-escalation. From Tehran’s point of view, this suits “Israel” and the US, both of which sought a pause, not a solution.
US President Trump’s ceasefire announcement was timed more for electoral optics than for strategic clarity. It postponed a war that risked spiralling out of control, particularly if the United States was drawn deeper into an open-ended campaign. But in doing so, it handed Iran space: space to harden its facilities, mobilise internally, and potentially accelerate a shift from nuclear ambiguity to overt deterrence.
And while Washington may consider this a temporary win, in Tehran, it’s viewed as proof that Iran’s endurance forced a nuclear superpower to back down.
Tehran has since filed a complaint with the United Nations, accusing the US and “Israel” of violating international law by targeting nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Article II of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states outside of self-defence or Security Council approval. Moreover, under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, attacks on safeguarded nuclear sites are explicitly prohibited due to the danger of radiological release and nuclear proliferation.
By failing to condemn the assault, Iran argues, the IAEA and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, risk setting a precedent that undermines the entire non-proliferation regime. The silence from international bodies has also eroded confidence in future cooperation and inspections. Why, Iranian officials ask, should Tehran continue to allow oversight if that oversight brings no protection?
The Unravelling of the JCPOA framework
With the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) already hanging by a thread since the US withdrawal in 2018, this latest episode may have finally sealed its fate. While Europe and Russia have called for renewed diplomacy, the military strikes have made a return to the previous deal politically toxic in Iran.
For many in Tehran, the JCPOA is now seen as a trap, one that offered transparency in exchange for economic relief that never came, and which left Iran’s strategic sites vulnerable to airstrikes and sabotage. In this view, returning to negotiations without structural guarantees would be naïve.
Indeed, many voices in Iran’s political establishment are calling for full withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) itself, a move that would legally unbind Iran from its current commitments and allow for open pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.
A shift toward strategic ambiguity
The consequences of the ceasefire extend far beyond Iran’s borders. In Arab capitals, there is quiet recognition that Iran has emerged more resilient and emboldened. In Tel Aviv, there is growing unease over the efficacy of existing defences. And in Washington, there is a dangerous temptation to view ambiguity as strategy.
But ambiguity, in this case, cuts both ways. Iran has preserved its right to develop nuclear technology while refusing to confirm its future intentions. Should it now cross the weaponisation threshold, it may do so without warning, rendering international diplomacy too slow to stop it. The 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium now sit in the shadows, untouched, uninspected, and more symbolically potent than ever.
If the goal of the Israeli-American air campaign was to slow down Iran’s march toward nuclear capacity, it may have done the opposite. Tehran now has every justification to argue that deterrence, not diplomacy, is its only protection against existential threats.
The reality is stark: this ceasefire has changed nothing. It has only delayed the inevitable confrontation, whether on the battlefield or in the nuclear sphere. “Israel” will continue to press for economic isolation and sabotage operations. Iran will deepen its alliances, harden its defences, and invest in further nuclear and missile development.
In truth, both parties are positioning themselves for the next phase of confrontation.
The international community, meanwhile, remains largely paralysed. With diplomacy broken, legal frameworks ignored, and verification mechanisms sidelined, the world is flying blind. The stakes are no longer theoretical. A single miscalculation could trigger a chain reaction that extends far beyond the Middle East.
The rendezvous has only been postponed
What began as an undeclared war has concluded with an undeclared pause. Yet make no mistake, this is merely the beginning of a countdown.
Iran, having absorbed an extensive assault on its territory, has emerged defiant, intact, and strategically alert. “Israel”, despite its claims, has discovered its limits. And the US, though instrumental in halting the war, has revealed the fragility of its credibility as an honest broker.
The next act may begin with an enrichment announcement, a nuclear test, or another missile barrage. For now, Tehran waits in silence, but it waits on its own terms. The world, meanwhile, must decide whether to engage that silence diplomatically, or face its consequences militarily.
Either way, the rendezvous is coming.
Did US Really ‘Obliterate’ Fordow?
Sputnik – 27.06.2025
Pentagon and White House claims and intelligence and media reports about the US’s June 22 attack on Iran are turning into a confusing jumble of contradictory information. Sputnik asked veteran former Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valtersson to sort through the falsehoods.
The Pentagon’s Claim: The DoD and White House say Fordow, Iran’s main, fortress-like mountain nuclear site, was obliterated based on evidence of concrete dust rising through its ventilation shafts after the US attack.
Expert Opinion: Valtersson points out that the concrete dust could be expected even with superficial damage, as the shafts themselves are made of concrete. “Even if you just hit the top of it, there will be concrete dust,” he explained.
“The ventilation shaft is made in such a way that it’s not just a hole down to it that you can drop a bomb into it. Exactly how they have built it, I don’t know. But it will not be possible just to drop it down to the facility if you hit it. [Otherwise] the Israelis could have done it.”
GBU-57 Bomb Details: Valtersson noted that the GBU-57 bomb is designed to penetrate up to 60 meters before exploding. But Fordow is built in rock, and buried under a mountain. The observer speculates that even if individual bombs hit the ventilation shafts, they would only penetrate 20 to 30 meters of rock before the blast occurred.
Built Fordow Tough: Valtersson assumes the Iranians likely designed Fordow to withstand a US attack, with shafts potentially built with caverns to divert blasts. He compared this to his experience with underground Swedish military facilities, constructed in a zigzag pattern for similar protection.
Seismic Considerations: Furthermore, Valtersson noted that Iran, mindful of potential attacks and earthquake risks, likely built Fordow on springs to absorb heavy shockwaves, ensuring its structural integrity. “They’re probably not just standing on the ground in a cavern,” he emphasized.
Attacking Iran is How You Get a Nuclear Iran
The debate over just how much damage US strikes did to Iran’s nuclear sites can only really be resolved on the ground, “big shovel” in hand, as frustrated DoD chief Pete Hegseth admitted to media after the leak of a preliminary intel assessment indicating that the attacks did not destroy the sites.
But “it’s not about whether they did or did not do damage,” says retired Russian Army colonel and military analyst Viktor Litovkin. “It’s about Trump bragging that the US had finally ‘closed’ the issue of Iran producing nuclear material. And leaks to press show that they did not conclusively do so.”
For one thing, “we don’t know whether Iran took its enriched uranium out of [Fordow] or not, and where this enriched uranium is now. Maybe it’s in Pakistan,” Litovkin quipped.
“One thing is clear. After what the US has done, Iran, which did not want to have the bomb before, will have it now. If not today, tomorrow. They understand that the only guarantee against such bombings is an atomic bomb,” the analyst said, citing the example of North Korea, who “no one touches” thanks to its nuclear capabilities.
Washington’s unprecedented political war on Europe
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 27, 2025
A dramatic U.S. political broadside against Europe signals not just strained transatlantic ties, but a deeper ideological rupture — one that could push the EU toward redefining itself as a fully autonomous global actor.
Notwithstanding tensions surrounding US tariffs on the EU, the future and role of NATO, and the conflict in Ukraine, US-EU tensions are escalating to an outright political and ideological rivalry. Washington’s political attacks on European states and their policies mark a significant shift towards the end of transatlantic unity and an opportunity for the EU to rediscover itself.
Washington’s political attacks on Europe
On May 27th, 2025, the US State Department published an essay that could go down in history as Washington’s charge sheet on Europe, expressing the depth of contention and resentment colouring the Trump administration’s ties with the continent currently. However, once set along this path of confrontation, there may not be a return to normal, transatlantic ties in the foreseeable future. The essay begins with narrating the history and depth of US-Europe ties. Immediately afterward, however, it shockingly mentions what was unthinkable until a few years ago. The US State Department sees Europe as a ‘different world’, different from what the US itself (supposedly) represents. To quote the letter: “What endures [in Europe] instead is an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself. Across Europe, governments have weaponized political institutions against their own citizens and against our shared heritage. Far from strengthening democratic principles, Europe has devolved into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance”.
Liberalism is Bad
It is not just European politics facing Washington’s assault; it is also the underlying liberal political order of Europe itself. The letter accuses Europe of restricting political space and criminalising dissenting political voices. The reason is the failure of liberalism, according to the letter. “Our concerns are not partisan but principled. The suppression of speech, facilitation of mass migration, targeting of religious expression, and undermining of electoral choice threatens the very foundation of the transatlantic partnership. A Europe that replaces its spiritual and cultural roots, that treats traditional values as dangerous relics, and that centralizes power in unaccountable institutions is a Europe less capable of standing firm against external threats and internal decay. To this end, achieving peace in Europe and around the world requires not a rejection of our shared cultural heritage, but a renewal of it”, adds the letter.
This, according to the letter, is not a good sign for the future of US-European ties. It mentions Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is said to have made clear that “Europe’s democratic backsliding not only impacts European citizens but increasingly affects American security and economic ties, along with the free speech rights of American citizens and companies”.
Beyond Mistrust
This letter reveals many things. Most importantly, it reveals the level of mistrust and gap that now divides the transatlantic world. It is no longer mere tactical disagreements over petty issues. This mistrust has at its roots in the political thinking of the Trump administration. Donald Trump understands the EU as a political arrangement created to “screw” the US. He and his political advisers are now trying to unscrew this arrangement to ‘free’ the US from the decades-old political bonds.
For Europeans, this is a major challenge. A report in the UK-based Financial Times said that Europe “is quickly becoming the latest front in a culture war Trump has unleashed against the bastions of liberalism. Most of his targets — elite universities, government agencies such as USAID, public broadcasters — have been domestic. But the Samson essay shows Maga’s ambitions go much further, and the movement is now prepared to deploy far beyond America’s borders”. According to this report, it is not the EU, which is the real threat to the US, but the US is the biggest threat to Europe itself.
How will Europe respond to this attack, which now has both political and cultural underpinnings? There is little denying that Europe needs to grapple with prospects of a potential ‘de-coupling’ from the US. This de-coupling will create, at least in the immediate future, an urgent need for policy correction on several fronts. From negotiating the trade war with the US—which Europeans will understandably find hard to win—to shared security, the continent needs to change its direction fundamentally from seeking US compliance with the written and unwritten obligations of the transatlantic alliance to totally redefining—and changing—them.
This policy correction requires the EU to do a thorough reassessment of its ties not just with Washington but with Russia and China as well. It needs to reject notions—many of which were fanned out by the Biden administration most recently —of Russia being a security threat and/or Russian expansionism. Instead, it needs to realise that the Trump administration might be its best chance in the last seven decades or so since the end of the Second World War to come out of Washington’s shadow and become a truly autonomous player capable of both defining and defending its interests. In other words, instead of seeking to mend ties with the US to make them ‘normal’, it should further the ‘de-coupling’ and reinforce its continental interests as its own responsibility. There is arguably no alternative for Europe to survive this situation without losing its strength and standing internationally.
Featured Video
Can the U.S. Afford to Annihilate Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Sanctions, War and the Policy of Dual Containment
By SASAN FAYAZMANESH | March 17, 2008
It is now nearly three decades since the Unites States adopted the policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq. While much has been written about the containment of Iraq, there has been very little in-depth analysis of this policy when it comes to Iran. In a book that is going to be released on March 31, 2008, entitled The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment (Routledge), I attempt to address this shortcoming by investigating when and why the US policy of containment of Iran came about, how it evolved, and where it stands today.[1] To the extent that Israel has been involved in US policy making, the study will also include the role that Israel has played in the containment of Iran. Also, since the fate of Iran has been inextricably linked to that of Iraq, occasionally the investigation will overlap with the containment of Iraq.
The policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq originated during the Carter Administration, but it was not until the Clinton Administration that the expression “dual containment” became popular. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Can the U.S. Afford to Annihilate Iran? /Seyed M. Marandi
- Elmo Sold mRNA Jabs to Your Toddler. Now They Are “Off-Label.”
- British state targets Palestine Action with yet another crooked trial
- Americans are paying the price to preserve Israel’s nuclear hegemony
- Resistance factions are necessary to ensure a permanent US Iraq withdrawal
- How Israel destabilizes the Middle East: Denying sovereignty and the right to exist
- Europe’s Establishment Is Embracing War – and Losing Voters
- NATO chief advocates war of aggression
- No Vote, No Representation, No State: Democracy, Israeli Style
- Zionist Bought Senate Blocks Information About American Citizens Killed By Israel
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Soldiers Abduct At Least 22 Across Occupied West Bank
- Eight Palestinians Killed in Israeli Attacks on Gaza
- Israeli former leaders and security chiefs threaten legal action over ‘Jewish terrorism’
- Israel map in LA Times ad includes all land from the river to the sea
- Inside Lebanon’s 200-page dossier on Israeli war crimes
- Flydubai, genocide, settler violence, Trump abuse of power to deport – Daily Update
- Counting Antisemitic Incidents: What the ADL Audit Reveals — and Obscures
- Mamdani releases plan to combat antisemitism and hate crimes in New York City
- Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Publish Letter to the American People
- DMFI launches $1 million ad campaign supporting Virginia’s Elaine Luria
- No Tricks Zone
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
