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.
Hungary blocks EU accession talks with Ukraine
RT | June 27, 2025
Hungary has vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the bloc’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev’s accession talks, according to a communique published on Thursday on the European Council’s website.
The statement, which urged the council to open membership negotiations with Ukraine, was “firmly supported by 26 heads of state” out of 27 EU members, the document read. As unanimous approval is required, talks cannot begin until Hungary reverses its stance. The communique noted that the council will revisit the issue at its next meeting in October.
While the document did not name Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed the veto in comments to reporters.
“We stopped Ukraine’s EU accession with the votes of Voks2025, and I needed it, because I was almost swept away by the public anger when I announced that Hungary would not agree to start negotiations with Ukraine,” Orban said, referencing the national referendum which concluded on June 20. More than 2 million Hungarians, or 95% of voters, rejected Ukraine’s EU bid, according to the prime minister.
“I had to remind [the council] that the most important criterion [for accession] is that there is in fact a country,” he said. “There must be a defined identity, borders, a population, a territory, and in the case of Ukraine, none of these apply.”
Ukraine made EU accession a national priority in 2019, formally applying in 2022 shortly after the escalation of its conflict with Russia. The EU granted Kiev candidate status later that year and set a 2030 target for membership.
While Brussels supports the move, critics argue that Ukraine’s institutions and economy are unprepared, and the cost would strain the bloc. Budapest opposes EU membership for Ukraine, warning it could escalate tensions with Russia and burden EU taxpayers with decades of military aid. Alongside Hungary, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Polish officials have raised concerns. A recent IBRiS poll shows only 35% of Poles support Ukraine’s EU bid, down from 85% in 2022.
Moscow strongly opposes Ukraine joining NATO, but had previously taken a neutral stance on its EU ambitions, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying in March that Ukraine has the “sovereign right” to join if the bloc remains focused on economics. However, with Brussels ramping up defense spending, Russian officials have recently grown critical. Peskov earlier this week called EU militarization “rabid,” while former President Dmitry Medvedev said the bloc has become “no less of a threat” to Russia than NATO.
“This is a politicized, globalist, and fiercely Russophobic organization,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “Thus, the so-called ‘Ukraine in the EU’ is a danger to our country.”
Araghchi outlines post-war nuclear diplomacy, warns against sanctions
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
In a televised interview with Iranian broadcaster SNN TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that both the United States and “Israel” had mobilized their nuclear capabilities and coercive strategies to force Iran into submission, but ultimately failed.
Araghchi praised the Iranian people’s steadfastness, describing it as a “historic symbol of resistance” during a critical national moment, emphasizing that despite years of sanctions, threats, and failed negotiations, the Iranian nation remained united in defense of its nuclear rights.
“Neither pressure nor diplomacy deprived us of our legitimate rights,” Araghchi declared.
The minister criticized US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, describing it as marked by mixed messages, threats coupled with calls for dialogue.
While Iran rejected direct talks with Washington, Araghchi noted that Tehran was considering indirect negotiations under new conditions. After diplomatic efforts failed to impose US terms, Araghchi accused Washington of unleashing “the Zionist enemy to commit hostile acts,” which he described as a betrayal of diplomacy.
Addressing Iran’s retaliatory actions, he stated that Tehran’s missile attacks on US bases were a direct response to American threats and aggression, clarifying that no agreement had been reached to initiate new talks and that the outbreak of war had undermined Iran’s readiness to propose a balanced negotiation framework.
He revealed that this framework rested on three pillars: the continuation of uranium enrichment within Iran, the complete removal of sanctions, and a firm commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.
“If these three conditions are met, an agreement is possible,” he said.
Iran’s response to military strikes and diplomatic breakdown
In his interview, Araghchi stressed that diplomacy following the recent war would differ sharply from previous efforts, warning that “Future international relations will reflect how each country behaved during the crisis.”
He noted that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is currently conducting technical assessments of damage caused by the strikes, describing them as “serious and extensive.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry has tasked its international affairs division with identifying the aggressors and seeking compensation through the United Nations.
“Reparations are now a key component of Iranian diplomacy,” he added.
The minister urged European countries, particularly Germany and France, to uphold their stated commitment to international law, issuing a stark warning to France and the UK, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, against triggering the snapback mechanism that would reinstate UN sanctions on Iran.
He labeled such a move as “the most dangerous strategic error Europe could make,” warning that it would exclude them from any meaningful role in Iran’s nuclear dossier.
“Military strikes and snapback sanctions won’t weaken Iran—they will eliminate Europe’s place at the table,” he asserted.
No plans to host IAEA chief amid inspection concerns
The Foreign Minister confirmed that Iran currently has no plans to host IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, noting that the issue of inspector access is under careful legal and political review.
“With some facilities damaged, inspections could inadvertently reveal sensitive details about the extent of destruction,” he said, emphasizing that all decisions must comply with recent legislation passed by Iran’s Parliament.
Sen. Mike Lee Introduces Bill to Remove US From NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 26, 2025
Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill to remove the US from the North Atlantic Alliance, arguing that the collective defence pact is not within US national security interests.
The legislation titled the ‘Not A Trusted Organization Act’ or the ‘NATO Act’ argues NATO expansion led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “The dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the security environment in Europe and rendered NATO’s founding collective defense mission irrelevant,” the bill states. “Despite its waning relevance and prior assurances to the contrary, NATO began a profound eastward expansion in 1999, which, as of 2025, culminated in a land border with the Russian Federation that exceeds 1,500 miles and encircles the Baltic Sea.”
It adds, “The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in 2022 demonstrates the Russian Federation’s willingness to employ military action in response to perceived security threats.”
In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukraine’s ascension into NATO would be a major national security risk for Moscow. Over the next decade and a half, the bloc would increasingly treat Kiev as a member, even if it would not grant Ukraine official membership in the alliance.
In 2021, the Kremlin sent a proposal to the White House that would have averted the war if NATO had agreed that Ukraine would not become a member. However, the Biden administration never seriously considered the offer, and NATO continued to express that the door to membership was open to Kiev.
In addition to starting a major war in Europe, Lee says membership in NATO is causing the US to pay for Europe’s defense. “Since the founding of NATO, the United States has shouldered the burden of what was characterized as a ‘collective’ security alliance, as the largest financial and hard power contributor,” the bill explains.
President Donald Trump is attempting to address the issue by mandating all alliance members to spend 5% of GDP on defense. However, Lee notes in the bill that nearly one-third of the bloc currently does not meet the current 2% minimum.
Lee argues that the current issues of the alliance create a situation where “Membership of the United States in NATO is inconsistent with the national security interests of the United States.”
Ian Proud: Was the Iran War a Strategic Blunder?
Glenn Diesen | June 25, 2025
Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.
Ian Proud’s Substack: https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
A Worrisome Pledge to Substantially Increase US ‘Defense’ Spending
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | June 26, 2025
Big news out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting this week is member governments agreeing to a declaration stating they each “commit to invest 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.”
“Defence” is used, largely outside America, as an alternative spelling of “defense.”
Most the focus in media coverage of this development is on the increased spending that will be required to meet this goal by nations other than the US that was the primary pusher of the move. But, it should also be noted that the US government will have to direct much more spending to “defense” to meet the goal as well.
A NATO chart of member governments’ spending levels as of 2024 puts the US at 3.4 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on this type of spending. That means meeting the goal would require that such spending gobble up roughly half again as much of GDP within the next ten years.
In April, I wrote about how it would be disastrous if the US government achieved this increased spending goal that was then being promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You can read that post here.
Orbán says Hungary will block Ukraine’s EU accession after 95 percent vote against it
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | June 26, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has declared that Hungary will not support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, citing an overwhelming mandate from a national vote in which 95 percent of participants opposed Ukrainian membership.
Speaking in Brussels, Orbán revealed that 2,168,431 Hungarian citizens voted against Ukraine joining the EU, out of a total of 2,278,000 valid votes cast. Just 5 percent supported the idea.
“I came here with a strong mandate. My voice has grown deeper — after all, I will speak today in the voice of more than 2 million Hungarians when I say during negotiations that Hungary does not support Ukraine’s EU membership. These are the stark facts,” he said.
Orbán stressed that Hungary cannot be circumvented in this process, noting that EU accession requires unanimous approval from all member states. “Even to open a negotiation cluster, unanimity is required — and that’s not there. So, this won’t happen. Nothing can happen today that would have any legal effect on Ukraine’s accession to the EU,” he said. “People can make statements and talk, but the EU will not have a common position, because Hungary does not support it. Those who disagree with us — 26 or however many there are — can say what they want, that’s also freedom.”
The Hungarian leader also warned that admitting Ukraine into the bloc would mean importing the conflict with Russia into the heart of Europe. “The problem is the war. If we were to integrate Ukraine into the European Union, we would be integrating the war along with it. And we don’t want to be in a community with a country that is at war, which poses an imminent danger to us,” he said. “Because if the EU includes a country at war, then the EU is at war, and we don’t want that.”
Hungary is one of the few EU member states whose government appears to be acting on the popular opinion of its voters when it comes to Ukraine’s EU membership.
A survey published this week from Poland showed just 35 percent of Poles support Ukraine’s accession to the EU, with 42 percent opposing its membership, yet Poland’s liberal government under Donald Tusk continues to adhere to the will of Brussels and Kyiv.
Similarly, polling conducted last year in Germany found 52 percent of citizens were not in favor, with an EU-wide average of 60 percent opposing Kyiv’s accession to the bloc.
Even Slovakia, which is frequently aligned with Hungary on matters related to Ukraine — in particular its opposition to arms sales and its support for immediate peace talks — has green-lighted talks on EU membership.
Speaking earlier this month, Prime Minister Robert Fico told journalists, “The Slovak government wishes Ukraine European development. If Ukraine wants to join the EU, this is its sovereign decision, and we support this decision.”
While he indicated that Kyiv was not yet ready to join, he expressed his support for preliminary accession talks to commence.
NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline
By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 24, 2025
Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.
“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”
Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”
The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.
With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.
The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed that for Ukraine there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will be “largely sidelined” at the summit’s main event. With Biden gone and Trump now in office, Rutte said Europe will work to cover the difference in US spending on the Ukraine war. He added that Europe and Canada have spent $40 billion on the war thus far this year. Washington is still providing Kiev with military and other aid, along with targeting intelligence.
Rutte’s comments also took aim at Tehran, the NATO chief said his “greatest fear” is Iran gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it a “stranglehold” over Israel. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prior to Tel Aviv’s unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was Tehran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel – which is not a party to the NPT – has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated to contain as many as 300 warheads.
The US carried out an illegal act of war, bombing Iran’s internationally safeguarded nuclear energy facilities over the weekend. This is a blatant violation of the UN charter. Trump ordered the massive attack without congressional authorization as required per the US Constitution. When questioned about the legality of the strikes, Rutte proclaimed “I would not agree that [what the US did] is against international law.”
Trump is demanding a $1 trillion US military budget. While Rutte is currently focused on Moscow and fueling the Ukraine war, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth recently boasted he is preparing the American military to defend the island of Taiwan, to “fight and win — decisively” a war with China.
NATO chief dodges question about why to fear a ‘Russian attack’
RT | June 24, 2025
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has failed to explain why the bloc believes Russia could attack within five years, but nevertheless used the claim during a press conference on Monday to reiterate calls for increased military spending.
In recent months, a number of Western officials have repeatedly claimed that Russia may attack an Eastern European member state in the near future, using the rhetoric as a foundation for drastically raising defense spending. Moscow has vehemently denied harboring any hostile intent, and called such accusations “nonsense.”
While speaking at a pre-summit press conference in The Hague, Rutte was asked to disclose what NATO’s assessment of a Russian attack within five years was based on. The secretary general, however, avoided giving any specific intelligence or threat assessment, citing only general fears and urging an increase in the bloc-wide defense spending target to 5% of GDP.
Rutte said there was “great worry in many circles of NATO” and referred to “senior military leaders” and “intelligence community people” who have spoken about the possibility that “3, 5, 7 years from now, Russia will be able to successfully attack us, if we do not start investing more today.”
He emphasized that “huge extra defense spending over the next three to five years” was required to ensure NATO’s future readiness. According to Rutte, yearly increases would be needed to strengthen the bloc through new personnel and military equipment.
Russia has consistently rejected the idea that Moscow plans to invade NATO countries, with President Vladimir Putin calling the accusations “nonsense” and “shameless lies” designed to extract resources from the population and divert it towards military spending.
Speaking to military academy graduates on Monday, Putin stated that the West “came up with this horror story themselves and repeats it year after year,” using it to provoke a new arms race and justify what he called “global militarization.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also slammed NATO’s “unbridled militarization” and suggested that the bloc would need to create a “monster” to push through the proposed 5% GDP defense spending benchmark.
“Let’s call things by their proper names,” he said. “This is an alliance created for confrontation. This is an alliance that brings aggression and confrontation. This is not an instrument of peace and stability.”
Dissatisfaction with the old elites is growing in Europe
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 24, 2025
Lately, it has become increasingly evident that European citizens are growing weary of their political elites and the entrenched system of rotating figureheads who perpetuate the same policies year after year. The political establishment exhibits a rigid adherence to outdated approaches, and their arrogance – manifest in a belief that they operate above democratic accountability – is glaringly apparent in their mainstream media channels, which are themselves staffed by the same elite journalists who have dominated the airwaves for decades.
Whether it is their reckless plans to fund military escalations through EU citizens’ taxes – such as the proposed five percent increase in NATO spending, justified by the unfounded fear of a Russian invasion – or the diversion of public funds to arm Israel, a state which commits genocide against the citizens of Gaza and which has now escalated to bombing nuclear facilities in Iran alongside its perpetual war partner, the United States, the disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been clearer.
Recently, widespread outrage erupted among citizens (and even some alternative politicians) over statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who declared that Israel and Ukraine were performing the Drecksarbeit (“dirty work”) for Germany and Europe. The remark was so brazen that even Germany’s state broadcaster, ZDF – part of the mainstream media apparatus – reacted with shock. Beyond confirming what many already suspected, this episode laid bare Germany’s geopolitical stance 80 years after the end of World War II.
“It would be good if this mullah regime came to an end,” Chancellor Merz asserted in an ARD interview, emphatically defending Israel’s military actions while insisting Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons. “Germany is also affected by the mullah regime.”
This rhetoric is emblematic of the German elite’s worldview. Merz is no outlier; his stance reflects the consensus within his party, the CDU – a so-called Altpartei with roots stretching back to the Nazi era. Many of its former members held high-ranking positions in the Third Reich, only to seamlessly reintegrate into postwar governance as if history had never happened. Merz’s own grandfather, the mayor of Brilon, was a card-carrying member of the NSDAP.
The Netherlands fares no better, currently mired in political chaos. Governments collapse with alarming frequency, yet power merely circulates among the same old parties, all aligned on fundamental policies – particularly in foreign affairs. Take the CDA, a party that dominated Dutch politics for decades. Its most famous figure, Joseph Luns, served as Foreign Minister across multiple cabinets from 1952 to 1971. Less known is his membership in the NSB – the Dutch Nazi party – in 1934. He was, like Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, and incidentally the longest-serving Secretary General of NATO! But actually he was complicit in colonial crimes, including endorsing the 300-year exploitation of Indonesia, which only gained sovereignty in 1948.
Many Dutch citizens hoped for change when Geert Wilders’ far-right PVV ascended to power in 2024. Yet they were deceived once more: the PVV has proven to be little more than an extension of the neoliberal VVD, augmented by ultra-Zionist fanaticism and overt anti-Arab, anti-Islam vitriol. Historically, such a platform would have been labeled an apartheid party – akin to South Africa’s Dutch-derived Nasionale Party. The parallels are undeniable, though the targets have shifted: where Afrikaner nationalism oppressed Black South Africans, today’s Zionists, backed by Europe and the U.S., are exterminating Palestinians.
In their hatred of Islam, the PVV and its ilk fail to grasp that they are fueling the very refugee crises they claim to oppose. War breeds displacement, as Europe witnessed in 2015. Meanwhile, ostensibly left-wing parties like the Dutch PvdA-GL rely on Muslim migrants as a voting bloc, knowing they will never support the right. Thus, the cycle perpetuates itself – a self-reinforcing loop that must be broken.
The situation is equally dire elsewhere in Europe. In France, the ruling elite has resorted to banning opposition figures, even imprisoning them. Marine Le Pen, convicted of embezzling EU funds, received a four-year sentence (two suspended) and a five-year electoral ban. Though she avoids jail via ankle monitoring, the precedent is chillingly reminiscent of NSDAP tactics – a softer fascism, but fascism nonetheless.
Belgium mirrors this decay. After two years without a government, it banned the Flemish nationalist Vlaams Blok in 2004 for racism, only for the party to rebrand as Vlaams Belang. Now, its leader, Dries Van Langenhove, faces imprisonment. Meanwhile, the Baltics embrace open fascism: demolishing Soviet monuments, persecuting Russian speakers, and hosting marches glorifying locals who joined the Wehrmacht and SS.
These snapshots – from Western Europe to the Baltics – paint a disturbing portrait. The nations that founded NATO and the EU remain fascist at their core, cloaked in modernist rhetoric. What passes for left-wing politics in Europe today is, in reality, fascist leftism: a push for a genderless, LGBTQIA+-dominated society that paradoxically depends on Muslim immigration to marginalize the right. At its heart lies a new state atheism, with traditional Christianity supplanted by woke dogma and Russia cast as the arch-enemy precisely because it upholds the values Europe has abandoned.
The so-called right-wing and centrist parties, meanwhile, champion family and Judeo-Christian identity (never Islam), though many are merely Zionist proxies serving U.S.-Israeli interests. While they oppose the Ukraine war and advocate diplomacy with Russia, they misunderstand Moscow’s pluralism – its 25-million-strong Muslim community defies their binary worldview.
This is the vicious cycle dooming Europe: both political flanks, beholden to elites who rotate between corporate boardrooms and ministerial offices, are destroying the continent. Obsessed with maintaining a unipolar colonial order, they trail behind the U.S. into endless wars, oblivious that China, India, and Russia have already eclipsed them.
Europe, still occupied by U.S. bases, risks becoming another Ukraine – a vassal state. Its leaders, like Ursula von der Leyen, conflate democracy with fascism, having never fully reckoned with their Nazi past. But dissent is growing. Citizens are awakening to the totalitarian reality of an EU where they have no voice.
The time for change is overdue. Whether through a European Spring or a new Renaissance, the process has begun. Ironically, Russia’s Special Military Operation – however unintended – has accelerated this reckoning on both sides of the Atlantic.
Will Germany initiate compulsory military service?
Remix News | June 24, 2025
Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder has come out with an aggressive plan to prep Germany for war. Support for Ukraine, defense against Russia, and efforts to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons are the priorities.
“Compulsory military and civilian service is the future,” said Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, according to Magyar Nemzet. “It is not enough to simply send out questionnaires to young people asking if they would be willing to serve; more decisive steps are needed,” he added.
Germany suspended compulsory military service in 2011, but the service could be reactivated via a parliamentary ruling. The German government’s coalition agreement currently only allows for voluntary military service. However, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has already indicated that a much more ambitious bill is in the works, which would allow for the introduction of compulsory military service if necessary.
In addition to the issue of conscription, Söder also urged the maximum deployment of the Bundeswehr —the German army — and again called for the development of a national missile defense system.
“This also requires technology – an Iron Dome system is absolutely necessary to protect not only Berlin, but all of Germany,” he said, emphasizing that urgent action, including more sanctions, is needed to deter Russia.
Söder also called for full support for Ukraine, including supplying the country with arms. Thorsten Frei, the head of the German Chancellery, warned on Monday that the threat to U.S. military bases in Germany had increased significantly after the U.S. air strikes on Iran.
“We stand with the United States and Israel,” Frei stated, adding that German security agencies are doing everything they can to protect American facilities.
Regarding the attacks on Iran, the politician highlighted: “The fact is that it was not only Israel that was in serious danger. If a terrorist regime were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would also pose a serious threat to world peace.”
Featured Video
Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How a War with Iran Would Diminish American Power
By Greg Scoblete | The Compass | August 13, 2010
Jennifer Rubin wants a war with Iran:
But the emphasis on the existential threat to Israel ignores a more basic issue for Americans to ponder: a nuclear-armed Iran represents a dagger at the heart of America and an existential threat to our status as a superpower and guarantor of the West’s security. As to the former, Iran is pressing ahead with its long-range ballistic missile program. First the Middle East and Eastern Europe, then all of Europe and, within a matter of years, the U.S. will be within range of Iranian missiles. If those are nuclear and not conventional, what then? We’re not talking about whether Iran is going to be “merely” a destabilizing factor in the Middle East or whether it will set off an arms race with its neighbors or imperil Israel’s existence. We’re talking about whether America will then be at risk (and lacking sufficient missile-defense capabilities if we continue to hack away at our defense budget). The argument about whether mutual assured destruction can really work against Islamic fundamentalists who have an apocalyptic vision becomes not about Israel’s ability to deter an attack but about ours. Those who oppose American military action have an obligation to explain why America should place itself in that predicament.
I would argue that any obligation to present an explanation lies with those whose disastrous policy prescriptions with respect to Iraq lead America into the worst strategic blunder in the country’s recent history. That aside, note the blind faith in the power of the military to actually achieve its ends. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
- Former Head Of MI6 Admits That The U.S. And Israel Are Losing The Iran War
- Scattered Thoughts on War and Peace
- Iran Threatens to Close Red Sea to Shipping in Response to Invasion
- Iran in excellent position to prevail in war with US, Israel: John Mearsheimer
- Iran warns US: Do not call your retreat an agreement
- Neighbors first – Moscow signals shift in energy strategy
- Almost 400 Ukrainian drones downed over Russia in single night – MOD
- Battle for Hungary: How the Russiagate blueprint has been unleashed against Orban
- Brussels warns Slovakia over ‘discriminatory’ dual fuel pricing targeting foreign drivers
- If Americans Knew
- In the West Bank, life is a constant battle – 3 articles
- Jacob Reses, one of the most powerful pro-Israel operatives in Trump’s Washington
- Israeli-US assaults kill or injure 87 children a day – Not a ceasefire Day 166
- ‘Forever live by the sword’: Understanding Israelis’ massive support for Iran war
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
- Gaza says 6–10 patients die daily waiting for treatment abroad as Israel blocks medical evacuations
- ‘Substantial evidence’ of double-tap strike in killing of Gaza’s Hind Rajab
- ‘Do Not Want To Die For Israel’: Doubts About Trump’s Iran Strategy Spread Among Troops
- Instead of taking Joe Kent’s claims seriously, the media is disregarding him as an antisemite
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 