Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

The Cradle | June 29, 2026

Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, said on 29 June that the new US-brokered agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv – reached in violation of Lebanese law – “will not be implemented.”

“This agreement will not pass, and it will not be implemented,” Berri said in an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper.

He stressed that his opposition to the agreement will remain “within constitutional frameworks,” and that his party – which is closely allied to Hezbollah – “will not boycott any cabinet session in which the agreement is discussed.”

“That is where we will confront it and state our position,” he added.

“The greatest danger posed by the agreement is not only its political content but also the possibility that it could fuel internal divisions and provoke Lebanese factions into confronting one another – something that would serve Israel above all else.”

Berri also responded to reports and claims that Lebanese authorities were planning to dismiss Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) chief Rudolphe Haikal.

“No one should even joke about such an idea, and no one should play games with the army. The military institution is a red line and one of the pillars of national stability and the primary guarantee for preserving civil peace,” the parliament speaker told Al-Akhbar.

Haikal, over the past year, has reportedly refused to move ahead with Hezbollah disarmament plans while Lebanon remains occupied and under attack. He is also said to have threatened resignation over the matter in 2025.

During a trip to Washington weeks before the latest war, Haikal angered US officials after he refused to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization at a meeting in Washington.

Hezbollah official Nawaf al-Moussawi recently said that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had plans to dismiss the army chief.

During Monday’s interview with the Lebanese parliament speaker, Berri went on to refer to the Lebanon–Israel agreement as a series of “dictates.”

The speaker called the deal “10 times worse than the 17 May Agreement of 1983,” referring to a Lebanese–Israeli peace deal decades ago which failed to materialize.

Berri, who at the time was at the start of his political career, played a key role in collapsing the 17 May 1983 agreement.

“I’d take 17 May 10 times over this agreement,” Berri stressed.

Berri also affirmed that the only way to achieve the country’s national goals “lies in the US–Iran negotiations,” rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to separate Lebanon from the Islamic Republic.

The US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) is “the only framework capable of creating a balance of power that would force Israel to meet its obligations.”

Berri added that “separating the Lebanese file from that process, or entering into separate negotiations with Israel under American and Israeli terms, would merely prolong the occupation and give Israel more time to impose new realities on the ground without providing Lebanon with any genuine guarantees.”

On 28 June, several Hezbollah officials slammed the agreement brokered by Washington – following months of direct talks that were conducted in violation of Lebanon’s laws and constitution.

MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan reiterated Berri’s previous calls to avoid civil strife, but warned that the Lebanese state “bears the responsibility” for whatever “outcome” results if Beirut attempts to actually implement the outcome.

The US-Lebanese-Israeli deal signed in Washington on 26 June stipulates that Hezbollah must be disarmed before any withdrawal of occupation forces can take place.

The agreement also builds on aspects of earlier direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, specifically the establishment of “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would deploy in order to dismantle “non-state armed groups,” including the resistance.

“Two initial zones have been agreed to by the [Israeli army] and the LAF, and future pilot zones will also be agreed upon by mutual consent,” Clause 3 of the framework stipulates, in effect forcing the Lebanese army to take permission from Israel on where it would deploy.

The deal would also bar Lebanon from filing legitimate international legal complaints against Israel, which has killed over 4,000 Lebanese and displaced over a million since the start of March this year.

This is represented by Clause 13 of the Lebanon–Israel deal, which calls for “the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.”

One of the clauses also explicitly states that the “Government of Lebanon herewith requests the support of international and, particularly Arab partners, under the leadership of the US, to achieve this outcome.”

Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik said this was among the “most dangerous” clauses, and interpreted it as a legitimization of a Syrian military assault against Hezbollah.

This is something US officials have repeatedly threatened, including President Donald Trump.

According to Israeli news outlet Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.

The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.

It adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.

It also says the two agreed “pilot zones” are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.

Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the ‘security zone’ that Israel has illegally established inside Lebanon.

According to Israel’s Channel 15, the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel grants the Israeli army the right to enter the “pilot zones” to verify that they have been cleared of weapons and military infrastructure by the LAF.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

The Middle East, Hormuz and the New Mercantilism

By Craig Murray | June 29, 2026

The provisional surrender document signed by Donald Trump appeared to represent a triumph for Iran and indeed for the world; but neither the USA nor Israel has the slightest sense of honour and they cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith.

Iran knows this – after all, the USA twice attacked Iran actually during peace negotiations, on each occasion killing key Iranian negotiators.

To understand the American position, it is important to realise two key points:

  • Greater Israel is an absolute priority
  • Opening the Strait of Hormuz is not a US priority

While the US/Israeli alliance were defeated in their attempt to impose regime change on Iran, and indeed have consolidated the popular support of the Iranian government, they have succeeded in expanding Greater Israel. Israel has ethnically cleared and devastated a vast swathe of Southern Lebanon, expanding its military footprint, and notably attempting to repeat its ploy from November 2024 of pushing forward its armour under cover of ceasefire.

Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon has been a major negotiating point for the Iranian government and is a key – indeed the very first – point of the Iran/USA MOU. But in an extraordinary coup aimed at negating that deal, the USA has signed a deal with Israel and its puppet Aoun regime in Lebanon which seeks to legitimise Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon through the agreement of the “Lebanese government”.

This is an astonishing development. I did not think I could have a lower opinion of the appalling bloated traitor “General” “President” Aoun but not even I – nor I think any commentator – believed he would make such a deal with Israel. The plan is that the Americans, Israelis and Lebanese Army will act together to forcibly eliminate Hezbollah, and only after that is certified – by the Israelis – will the Israelis withdraw from Southern Lebanon.

Here are the operative paragraphs. Note that they carefully do not say in terms that Israel will actually leave Lebanon.

“3. …The Government of Israel and the Government of Lebanon commit to a reciprocal, sequenced process, with clear conditions, whereby the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to progressively redeploy out of the Lebanese territory.”

“5 . …The Government of Israel underscores that the termination of this threat, through the disarmament and dismantlement of such groups in all of Lebanon and additional security arrangements to be agreed upon between the two countries, will eliminate any future need for IDF military action or presence in Lebanon.”

This is plainly completely incompatible with the USA/Iran MOU, which states as Point 1:

“The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.”

Of course, everybody knows that Israel will never withdraw voluntarily, any more than they withdrew from the Golan Heights. Annexation is plainly the goal and expansion of Greater Israel at least to the Litani River and probably further.

It is important to realise that this is not only Aoun seeking the annihilation of the Shia population of Southern Lebanon; he is also betraying his own community. Aoun is himself a Southern Lebanese Christian, and Israel has been destroying the homes, churches, hospitals and families of Southern Lebanese Christians with as much glee as they attack Muslims.

The agreement names two “pilot zones” where the combined Israeli and Lebanese Army forces will eliminate Hezbollah, followed by Israeli withdrawal from those zones. But these are zones which Israel is not currently occupying – they are areas where Israel was defeated in fighting by Hezbollah and which have been since subject to relentless Israeli bombardment.

So Aoun has agreed to support militarily an IDF advance further into Lebanon, against an agreement that Israel will be able to withdraw once these key Hezbollah redoubts have been destroyed. Even if Aoun were stupid enough to believe the Israelis will withdraw after the operation, this is a level of treachery it is difficult to comprehend.

Greater Israel is not a concept. It is a reality being created before our very eyes.

Israel now occupies 70% of Gaza and plainly the entire “Board of Peace” mechanism is nothing but smoke and mirrors, pure fraud. It has zero effect on the continued tightening of the Gaza concentration camp into an ever-shrinking area. Israeli settlements in the West Bank expand daily and every night the skies are red with Palestinian homes and crops burning. In East Jerusalem Palestinians are continually evicted and replaced by fresh European or American arrivals. In Syria, Israel is building permanent fortifications and its armour creeps forward field by field, with the full cooperation of “President” al-Jolani.

Iran was able to resist the combined military might of the USA and Israel. That is cause for celebration. But do not allow it to blind your eyes to the continued hard reality of the expansion of Greater Israel.

There is no gain for the US in the US/Iran Memorandum of Understanding which the US did not already possess before starting the war. It is therefore very possible, and in many senses valid, to read it as the formalisation of US defeat: a surrender document. Which is why you should be sceptical about US commitment to the terms.

The Strait of Hormuz was fully open before the US started the war. Allowing the flow of oil to resume has become a short-term US priority due to high domestic retail prices and pending elections, but the MOU envisages more Iranian control – and potentially fees – in the Strait than existed before the war.

There is no indication of restrictions on the Iranian nuclear programme that were not already available in the peaceful negotiations. Crucially there are no limitations on Iran’s vital ballistic missile production. The proposed relaxation of sanctions and release of frozen assets is a triumph for Iran and long overdue, and the $300 billion in dollars in reparations, from unspecified sources, is stunning.

So stunning of course that anyone with their head screwed on will realise there is no long term American intention to keep faith with the deal.

Trump is not stupid. There are many ways of characterising his kind of cunning, but it is not stupidity. He was not, as the prevailing narrative seeks to state, the only person in the World who did not realise the Strait of Hormuz would be closed by the war. The USA is quite happy to see the Strait of Hormuz closed, or permanently made more difficult and expensive to transit.

The key to understanding Trump’s position is his famous love of tariffs. Trump is a mercantilist. For many years the world worked on the general basis of accepting the economics of Adam Smith – that freedom of trade promoted universal, reciprocal wealth creation. That was the founding basis of the World Trade organisation, and is the internal philosophy of big trading blocs like the EU.

Trump rejects this and returns to the philosophy that other nations are all competitors, not potential partners, and that success lies not only in increasing your own production, but in damaging your rivals’ production – which ultimately will increase domestic production further. Trump rejects the basic premise of free trade.

The long prevailing belief in the beneficial effects of free trade historically was, as logic demands, accompanied by the demand for freedom of navigation.

Sweeping away tariffs goes hand in hand with sweeping away the controls on shipping which carry the goods. Before the rise of liberal economics, almost all states had practised mercantilism, with controls on shipping being a major source of state revenue. The magnificence of Kronborg Castle in Helsingør, in which Hamlet is set, was constructed entirely from revenues from tolls on ships exiting the Baltic by passing the strait it overlooks, for example.

Freedom of navigation was initially enforced ultimately by the British, and later the American, Navy. States attempting to enforce customary passage fees, for example in the Malaccan Strait, were classified as “pirates” and freedom of navigation became a routine justification for imperialist aggression and/or colonial occupation. Freedom of navigation eventually became customary international law, ultimately codified in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

The simple truth is this: in openly abandoning the principle of free trade, the Trump regime has also abandoned the logically linked principle of freedom of navigation. This is evident not just in their indifference to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It is evident in the naval blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and above all in the worldwide blockade of Russian hydrocarbon deliveries, including the effective end of free passage through the Strait of Dover, and a de facto naval blockade of the Arctic passages.

Following the shale boom, the United States is a net hydrocarbon exporter. The USA balance of trade benefits from high hydrocarbon prices. Trump is doing everything he can to increase US hydrocarbon production by slashing environmental and other controls. This is a core Trump policy.

The USA does not import hydrocarbons through the Strait of Hormuz. That fact is key to Trump’s thinking.

In this mercantilist view, closure of the Strait has two benefits for the USA.

  • It disadvantages rival hydrocarbon suppliers
  • It disadvantages rival industrial competitors in Europe and Asia who do get hydrocarbons through Hormuz.

This is exactly the same logic behind the destruction of Nord Stream 2. The same mercantilist system also explains the effective seizure through naval blockade and control of Venezuela’s oil production, and the blockade of Russian hydrocarbons through sanctions and the “shadow fleet” propaganda disguising another naval blockade.

The UK’s recent actions in the Dover strait indicate that the West, not just the United States has surrendered the principle of freedom of navigation in straits.

Trump believes, as he has repeatedly stated in public, that domestic fuel prices in the USA are a blip and will equalise as the USA increases its domestic fuel production and Venezuelan fuel production. However this was not happening in time for the mid-term elections which is why reopening the Strait of Hormuz became a temporary priority that occasioned the ceasefire and MOU with Iran.

None of this implies good faith negotiation or a real prospect for a lasting peace.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East, Hormuz and the New Mercantilism

Strait of Hormuz Remains Open for Those Who Adhere to PGSA Protocols, But Global Economy Faces Inflationary Shock

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 28, 2026

After an exchange of missiles and drones on Saturday, the US backed down and declined to continue striking Iran. Qatar reportedly intervened to broker a new ceasefire. The US and Iran, in response to Qatar’s intervention, agreed to halt attacks against each other and plan to meet in Doha on Tuesday for technical talks aimed at resolving their dispute over the Strait of Hormuz, according to Axios.

The US-Iran meeting was originally planned to take place in Switzerland on Monday and focus on Iran’s nuclear program. Now the talks will take place in Doha on Tuesday. Iran’s position is firm… Traffic through the Strait must be carried out in accordance with the PGSA protocols. The US boxed itself in a corner with the language of the MoU:

5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

The MoU give Iran the sole responsibility for making arrangements for the “safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz. If the US had insisted on including Oman and the other Gulf nations in the MoU then Iran would be obligated to consult with them. But the US accepted Iran’s language and Iran will insist there is no compromise on its sovereign right to manage traffic flow through the Strait.

While the world markets remain fixated on oil passing through the Strait, they are ignoring the profound impact of the halt in the shipment of Helium, Sulfur and Urea. The global economy is already experiencing the pain of the reduction in the supply of these commodities and the world will experience a global inflationary shock. Let’s look at each one.

Helium

The structural problem: Roughly one-third of the world’s helium production is impacted by the crisis, due to both the disruption of LNG production in Qatar and the very time-sensitive nature of helium transportation.

The mechanism was twofold. On March 2, state-owned QatarEnergy halted all LNG and associated production at Ras Laffan Industrial City following Iranian drone and missile strikes. On March 4, QatarEnergy declared force majeure on affected contracts. The company’s CEO stated that production would not restart until the conflict ended, and that even then, normalisation of deliveries would require “weeks to months.” Iran then struck Ras Laffan again on March 18-19.

Price movement: The shock hit fast. “The spot price for helium has moved up pretty dramatically. I would say 70 to 100 percent in a week,” said Phil Kornbluth, president of Kornbluth Helium Consulting and a 30-year veteran of the industry. Bank of America put the initial surge at 40%, while other estimates put prices at between 70% and 100% higher in some cases within a little more than a week.

The situation had an additional physical complication that other commodities don’t face. Roughly one-third of the world’s cryogenic helium ISO containers were stranded in or around Qatar. Repositioning this equipment after the conflict would require a minimum of three months, creating a supply gap that outlasts the conflict itself. Liquefied helium evaporates within roughly 45 days, meaning stranded inventory cannot be held for later delivery. Ships rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope face an additional 3,500 nautical miles, extending transit times by 10 to 14 days, during which liquid helium experiences boil-off losses of 15–20% of cargo volume.

By June 20, prices remained substantially elevated with no clear return path, because the damage to Ras Laffan is physical, not merely logistical. Even after Iran and the United States announced a ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz remained largely closed due to overlapping blockades, meaning that even if production restarted, Qatari helium had no viable sea route to market. The structural problem persists through the MOU period.

Given Helium’s critical role in the production of computer chips, the price of computers and smart phones is soaring. Apple, for example, recently announced significant price hikes for the iPhone 17 Pro Max (+$200) and the 16-inch MacBook Pro (+$300).

Sulfur

Pre-war baseline — already stressed: The sulfur price to Indonesia rose from $101 per metric ton in July 2024 to $554 per metric ton by January 2026 as high-pressure acid leaching (HPAL) expansion drove demand — a 440% increase before the Iran conflict added further pressure. The market was already at multi-year highs before February 28.

The geographic exposure: Ships moving through the strait carry 24% of the world’s sulfur, a feedstock for sulfuric acid used to make metals like nickel and copper, as well as fertilizer and household cleaning products. The Middle East accounts for roughly 24% of global sulfur production and approximately 50% of global seaborne sulfur trade, all of which transits the Strait of Hormuz.

Price movement: Since the start of Operation Epic Fury, the price of sulfur has nearly doubled. Gulf states typically provide 45% of the seaborne sulfur trade through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s blockade caused a 30% price spike by halting half of the global supply, creating bottlenecks in mineral extraction. Sulfur shortages were already leading to 20–30% output reductions for critical mineral miners.

The downstream cascade was severe. The World Bank noted that sulfur prices had doubled since January by April 2026, and that China’s move to tighten exports — in response to its own domestic shortfall as Persian Gulf imports dried up — added upward pressure on DAP (diammonium phosphate) prices. China banned sulfuric acid exports, impacting among other things copper production in Chile, which imported sulfuric acid as a consumable.

By June 20, with the MOU in place but Hormuz only partially normalising and QatarEnergy yet to fully resume operations, sulfur prices remained substantially above pre-crisis levels. As of May 2026, prices remained elevated, with the global fertilizer index projected to rise over 30% for the year amid persistent supply risks and rerouting challenges.

Urea

Pre-war baseline: Before the war, the cost of FOB granular urea in Egypt — a bellwether of nitrogen fertilizers — was $400 to $490 per metric ton. US retail prices hovered in the same general range through mid-February.

The geographic exposure: The Arabian Gulf is the central hub for global agriculture, accounting for at least 20% of all seaborne fertiliser exports. The dependency is even more acute for urea, the world’s most widely used nitrogen fertiliser, with 46% of global trade originating from the region.

Phase 1 — initial shock (late February to March): Oxford Economics’ Alpine Macro said urea and ammonia prices had surged by around 50% and 20%, respectively, since the war began. By March 3, a contract was signed for the supply of urea from Algeria at $618 per ton on FOB terms — the highest figure since 2022.

Phase 2 — peak (April 2026): Nitrogen (urea) prices climbed above $850 per metric ton in April, up 80% since February and the highest level since the 2022 commodity spike. US retail: Urea had a national average as high as $826 per ton in early April surges, up 34–35% month-over-month in some periods, and urea prices FOB Middle East reached around $795 per ton due to regional disruptions.

Phase 3 — partial retreat (May–June 2026): The urea market was the fastest to respond to the MOU and the partial Hormuz normalisation, partly because it is more fungible than helium and partly because the ceasefire allowed some rerouting via land corridors. FAO forecast international urea prices to ease from June as fertiliser shipments resume from the Persian Gulf and China returns to export markets after issuing new export quotas. After the de-escalation of tensions and statements regarding a ceasefire, the market experienced an oversupply, which led to a significant price drop.

However, in light of the events of the past three days, the expectations that ships carrying urea will be exiting the Persian Gulf are overly optimistic and the price is likely to rise until there is a clear sign that ships will be passing the Strait in accordance with the PGSA protocols.

Video Interviews

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz Remains Open for Those Who Adhere to PGSA Protocols, But Global Economy Faces Inflationary Shock

Iran, Lebanon speakers agree trilateral unit to end Israeli aggression

Al Mayadeen | June 28, 2026

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri have affirmed their commitment to halting the ongoing Israeli aggression during a phone call, with Ghalibaf emphasizing that ending the war on Lebanon while safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity remains a fundamental pillar of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.

Ghalibaf reasserted that Iran’s firm objective is to halt the war, secure the return of the displaced, bring an end to the occupation, and force the total withdrawal of the Zionist entity from Lebanese territory.

He emphasized that ending the war on Lebanon, while safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, remains a fundamental pillar of the first clause of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.

Addressing diplomatic frameworks, Ghalibaf noted that the recent talks in Switzerland produced an agreement to establish a trilateral conflict management unit comprising Iran, the United States, and Lebanon.

According to Iranian television, both speakers stressed the urgency of convening this conflict management unit as soon as possible to effectively control and terminate the war.

Berri warns of Zionist efforts to circumvent Lebanese sovereignty

For his part, Speaker Berri welcomed the Swiss outcomes, stating they directly serve the interests of the Lebanese people. However, he warned that the Zionist enemy is actively attempting to circumvent the restoration of Lebanon’s full sovereignty.

Berri fiercely condemned the alternative Washington framework between Lebanon and the Zionist entity, describing the agreement as a “dangerous conspiracy” and a “deliberate plot to ignite internal strife.”

His remarks reflect deep concerns in Beirut about US-led efforts to bypass Lebanon’s legitimate institutions and impose arrangements that would undermine the country’s sovereignty.

Context: Implementation of the Islamabad memorandum

The Islamabad memorandum of understanding, signed between Iran and the United States on June 18, provides for the cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.

The agreement has been a source of contention, with Israeli officials reportedly acknowledging that it represents a “catastrophe and strategic defeat” for the occupation state.

The trilateral conflict management unit is intended to ensure the implementation of the ceasefire provisions in Lebanon and to prevent further escalation.

However, continued Israeli violations and the alternative Washington framework threaten to undermine the agreement, highlighting the fragility of the diplomatic process.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran, Lebanon speakers agree trilateral unit to end Israeli aggression

How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 28, 2026

On Friday, Israel and the Lebanese government signed a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that essentially gives Lebanese sovereignty away to Israel and destroys the MoU with Iran.

The End Of Lebanese Sovereignty

The deal, as Benjamin Netanyahu boasted, is “a historic achievement for Israel” because it allows Israel to hold, “a security zone in Lebanon for as long as is needed for Israeli security”, (ie continue the occupation of South Lebanon).

Israel Channel 12 reported that , “The Lebanese government requested from Washington not to publish the secret security annex within the framework agreement with ‘Israel’” which “stipulates a clear commitment from both parties that any step will not be implemented according to timelines but according to conditions” and that “The framework agreement stipulates freedom of operation inside the ‘Blue Line’ against immediate and emerging threats”.

Furthermore, Israeli media reports that within the security annex to the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement, “Israel does not only have to confirm the pilot locations – the IDF will also enter the areas it withdrew from to verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground.”

In other words, according to the deal, Israel is allowed to occupy areas of South Lebanon with no timetable to withdraw, and is able to enter areas of Lebanon to “verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground”.

As the analysist Elijah J. Magnier noted , under the agreement, “Israel keeps the power to decide when it feels secure enough to withdraw, the United States presents itself as mediator while acting as Israel’s strategic protector, and Lebanon is asked to implement security obligations that its own political and social reality may not allow.”

He added, “The most dangerous feature is the absence of a clear timetable for full Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will remain in southern Lebanon, in its security or buffer zones, until Hezbollah disarms and until Israel judges that the threat to its citizens has been removed. This makes Israel not merely a party to the agreement, but the judge of Lebanese compliance. It gives Israel the authority to decide whether Hezbollah has been sufficiently disarmed, whether the Lebanese army has done enough, whether the threat has disappeared, and therefore whether Israel should withdraw. That is not sovereignty. It is conditional sovereignty under Israeli review.”

Furthermore, as Lebanese journalist Rania Khalek reported , within the published deal , “Point 2 stipulates that Israeli withdrawal is contingent on the Lebanese Army first disarming Hezbollah, meaning civil war. This flips international law on its head. Israel’s occupation is illegal whether Hezbollah exists or not. The agreement states: ‘the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the IDF to progressively redeploy out of Lebanese territory.’ By agreeing to disarm Hezbollah first, with the markers for ‘verified disarmament’ yet to be determined by the U.S., the Lebanese government has cemented the occupation of the south.”.

An anchor on the Israeli channel 13 boasted, “It seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon towards civil war. Maybe it’s not so bad for us. Let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah”.

Furthermore, Rania Khalek noted, “Point 13 demonstrates shocking incompetence as it gives up Lebanon’s right to ‘hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.’ That means the Lebanese government agreed to forfeit using the law against Israel for the endless list of war crimes they’ve committed against Lebanon. It’s wild that this is coming from a government whose Prime Minister was a judge on the International Court of Justice and presided over South Africa’s case on the genocide in Gaza.”

The End Of The MoU

Aside from giving up Lebanese Sovereignty to Israel and the United States, it destroys the U.S.-signed MoU with Iran, which includes an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Point one of the MoU reads , “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

But as Elijah J. Magnier noted, “The Washington framework effectively empties paragraph 1 of the US-Iran MOU of its meaning. That paragraph required an end to the war, respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The new framework replaces that obligation with a conditional mechanism: Israel withdraws only when it decides that Hezbollah has been disarmed and the threat has disappeared. In other words, Netanyahu has turned an Israeli duty to withdraw into a Lebanese obligation to prove itself under Israeli supervision.”

Iran has stayed strong in stating that an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is a red line in the future of the MoU.

Iran Press TV reports that during a call between Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said, “Our goal is to end the war in Lebanon, [help] return of refugees to their homes, end the occupation and [secure] withdrawal of the Zionist regime from Lebanese territory” and “reiterated Iran’s seriousness in pursuing the issue.”

According to Press TV, both speakers of parliament agreed that the Israel/Lebanon deal was in violation of the MoU. The report noted:

The Lebanese parliament speaker warned that the Zionist enemy seeks to circumvent the issue related to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Islamabad MoU through alternative means.

Berri described the Washington-brokered agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli regime as a conspiracy and sedition.

The Iranian and Lebanese parliament speakers emphasized the need for an early meeting of the deconfliction unit to help oversee implementation of the Islamabad-brokered MoU and end the war in Lebanon.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has similarly reiterated that an unconditional Israel withdrawal from South Lebanon is crucial to the future of the MoU.

Press TV reported, “He reiterated Iran’s longstanding position on Lebanon’s sovereignty, saying the Islamic Republic considers the protection of Lebanon’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, along with safeguarding the dignity and security of all Lebanese citizens, to be a fundamental prerequisite for any sustainable agreement aimed at ending the war and Israel’s military presence in the country.”

It added:

He also emphasized that Tehran had placed an end to Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon alongside the termination of hostilities against Iran as one of its principal demands and has consistently insisted on the implementation of those commitments.

The Iranian spokesman further stated that the full implementation of the first provision of the memorandum—which calls for ending Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Lebanese territories—is essential for reaching a final and lasting agreement capable of restoring stability to the region.

Referring to the United States’ explicit commitment under the first provision of the June 18 memorandum, Baghaei urged Washington to take all necessary measures to compel Israel to halt all acts of aggression and military offensives across Lebanese territory.

He also called for the prompt establishment of a timetable for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from the occupied areas of Lebanon, saying that such a step is necessary for the successful implementation of the agreement and the achievement of durable peace and security.

The remarks came after Israel and Lebanon signed a 14-point framework agreement in Washington aimed at ending hostilities and addressing long-standing security issues along their shared border.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran

BACK TO BATTLE: Iran, US, Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah /Lt Col Daniel Davis

Full interview:

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 27, 2026

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on BACK TO BATTLE: Iran, US, Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah /Lt Col Daniel Davis

With Iran and the US Exchanging Blows in the Persian Gulf, the MoU’s Survival Is in Doubt

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 27, 2026

Last I heard the US and Iran are supposed to meet in Switzerland starting Sunday, 28 June, to continue negotiations over the MoU. However, today’s exchange of missiles and drones in the Strait of Hormuz may have put a nail in the coffin of the MoU.

Today’s escalation was the most serious exchange since the June 17 MOU signing and represents a clear breach of the first paragraph of the MoU by the United States:

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

There was nothing in the MoU that prevented Iran from firing on a ship that ignored the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) protocols. Under the PGSA system, shipowners receive verifiable guidance and can apply for transit permits directly through the PGSA’s formal process, creating a centralised mechanism for coordinating transit through the strait with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Ever Lovely tried to circumvent the PGSA by traveling along the Omani corridor. Iran fired on it, which resulted in the US attacking Iranian positions in the Strait… a clear violation of the MoU.

The situation escalated on Saturday. Here is the sequence as it developed.

The triggering incident — 4:30 AM ET

Iran launched a one-way attack drone that hit M/T Kiku this morning at 4:30 a.m. ET. The Panama-flagged tanker attempted to use the Omani route without notifying the IRGC in accordance with the PSAG protocol. It was carrying more than two million barrels of Qatari crude oil, and was headed to the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.

Second vessel struck

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre also reported another attack on a different commercial vessel Saturday, close to the coast of Oman. The vessel sustained damage to its bridge. All crew were reported safe and no environmental damage had been reported. The incident was reported at around 11:30 AM local time.

Iran strikes Bahrain

Following the second attempt by a commercial vessel to ignore the PGSA protocols, Iran launched a number of drones at the former Headquarter of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry called it “a flagrant violation of its sovereignty, a flagrant threat to the security of citizens and residents, and a blatant breach of international norms.” Egypt and Kuwait swiftly condemned the attack. Saudi Arabia and Qatar also later condemned the drone strikes by Iran.

US retaliatory strikes — second wave

Late Friday night, and continuing into the early hours of Saturday, the US Central Command launched a second wave of retaliatory strikes on Iran, saying it attacked multiple targets in Iran at President Donald Trump’s direction. CENTCOM said US military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities. This was notably broader than Friday’s strikes, which had focused on missile and drone storage and coastal radar. Adding “minelayer capabilities” to the target set is a significant escalation in scope.

Trump, in another violation of the first paragraph of the MoU, said in a Truth Social post Saturday evening that US aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites “for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN!” The president threatened that if Iran doesn’t “learn,” the US “will be forced to militarily complete the job that we successfully started” and that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.”

The strategic logic on each side is now fully exposed. Iran frames every ship using the Oman route as a “violating vessel” and every US strike as a ceasefire breach — positioning its own attacks as defensive enforcement. The US frames Iran’s drone attacks on commercial shipping as ceasefire violations that require retaliation. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of Iran’s parliamentary national security commission, wrote that “the failed US President has shown he has no commitment to the principles of negotiation or a ceasefire” and that “this reckless violation of the ceasefire will, as always, lead to retreat and regret on their part.”

The IRGC released the following statement early on the 28th:

‘Dear noble people of the Islamic Iran: Your brave sons in the Naval and Aerospace Forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, during a joint missile and drone operation at 02:00-03:00 AM, targeted eight important U.S. targets, including Ali Al-Salem Airbase in Kuwait and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain.

The aggressor enemy, whose betrayal and violation of treaties are part of its nature, attacked early this morning five coastal sites in Iran under the pretext of confronting the IRGC Navy in response to seizing a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the Islamabad MoU, regarding traffic arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz with the Islamic Republic, from now on, ships that violate Iran’s instructions will be confronted with a greater force than before.

Any potential new aggression by the enemy for any reason, even if it is similar to last night’s attacks on unimportant targets, will have a devastating response.

The enemy must know that violating the ceasefire is contrary to Paragraph 1 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding and will lead to a complete halt in negotiations.’

Iran launched a significant combination of missile and drone strikes on the airbases in Kuwait and Bahrain. As I write this, the US has not responded. The ball is now in the court of Donald Trump… Will the US continue to encourage ships to circumvent the Iranian PGSA protocol or will it stand down? If the decision is the former then the MoU is finished and the likelihood of renewed US attacks on Iran is high. If it is the latter then the MoU, although on life support, may be salvaged. Let’s see what Sunday brings.

Video interviews

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on With Iran and the US Exchanging Blows in the Persian Gulf, the MoU’s Survival Is in Doubt

Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

Mario Nawfal | June 26, 2026

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy said it targeted US military sites across the region in response to American aggression against Iran’s coastline, warning that any further attacks would prompt a significantly broader retaliation.

In a statement, the IRGC said the strikes came after the United States allegedly carried out air assuaults against Iran’s coastal areas under the pretext of responding to incidents involving navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

IRGC cites Strait of Hormuz and ceasefire commitments

The IRGC stressed that Washington violated its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arguing that Article 5 requires coordination with Iran on maritime monitoring and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The statement also linked the latest developments to continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.

Warning of wider retaliation

The IRGC said navy had delivered an “appropriate response” by targeting US military sites and warned that any repeat of American attacks would be met with a much broader military response.

The force stressed that it remains prepared to respond to future actions targeting Iranian territory or interests.

Earlier, US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it launched attacks on Iranian military targets after accusing Tehran of attacking a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while Iranian media reported explosions near the southern port city of Sirik following warning fire directed at vessels in the strategic waterway.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Cradle | June 26, 2026

An analysis of 153 public opinion surveys across seven major wars has concluded that the US-Israeli war against Iran is the most unpopular conflict in US history, surpassing the Vietnam War’s previous record, Responsible Statecraft (RS) reported on 26 June.

The report indicates that public support for the conflict has plummeted to a net negative 32 percent, dropping below the previous historical low of negative 31 percent recorded during the Vietnam War.

This finding directly contradicts testimony by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed during an April Senate hearing that the conflict maintained the support of the US public.

The analysis highlights three unprecedented ways that the war on Iran broke historical records in terms of unpopularity.

The first is that the war began with a net negative support from the very start, with the war launching with negative 13 percent public support.

The second is that the war has generated historic disapproval, currently holding the lowest level of public support of any major war in US history.

Finally, the war was defined by constant opposition throughout, making it the first where opponents outnumbered supporters for the entire duration of the fighting.

Researchers noted a significant “support gap” in the data, which utilized historical Gallup polls and recent Economist/YouGov surveys.

While 67 percent of Republicans polled expressed general support for the war, 54 percent of that same group called for a deal to end the war as quickly as possible.

Among the general US public, net support for prolonging the war rather than ending it immediately stood at negative 52 percent.

A recent Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll published on 24 June revealed that 59 percent of US adults back the agreement to end the war on Iran, while only 24 percent opposed it.

Respondents of the survey showed a deep skepticism about the outcomes of the war, with only 18 percent saying that the US has achieved its stated goals.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on 23 June revealed that only 24 percent of US citizens believed the war with Iran was worth its costs, while 50 percent said the war was not worth it.

This widespread disapproval has driven US President Trump’s approval rating to around 34 percent, marking an all-time low for his second term.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2026

The unintended consequences of Trump’s Iran Deal are too many to list. Chief among them is that Trump’s own buffoonery has injected cash and power into the regime in Iran that it could only have previously dreamt of. But the “unconditional surrender” deal has also probably destroyed the petrodollar – leading, most likely, to a faster demise of the US as what was once called a “superpower”, or even sometimes the superpower. Trump’s idiotic outburst of “unconditional surrender” is, of course, the greatest irony of the entire fiasco, given that it is Trump who is on his knees and has given Iran so much simply to open the Straits of Hormuz, simply to bring down the global price of oil.

Yet what happens now in the region, both to Israel and the GCC countries? For Israel, many leading commentators like Alistair Crooke claim that its people are in a state of shock and that it will take some time before they wake up after the party the night before and realise that things got a little out of hand and that a certain process of cleaning up and repair needs to take place. Crooke and others even go further and believe that Israel can no longer continue to indulge itself in the delusional notion of ’Greater Israel’ – i.e. having regional ambitions of hegemony beyond its borders – and needs to recalibrate its goals, starting with the admission that it is not winning its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a general consensus among analysts that most Israelis are in a state of shock about how the war in Iran was lost, how America itself didn’t and couldn’t deliver on its military promises, and how even the IDF is no match for Hezbollah. This will take some time for them to sink in – that Israel has simply overstretched itself both politically and militarily, and that the reality is that it is in a deep hole and perhaps a solution might be to stop digging.

But a period of sombreness and solace is hardly what Netanyahu has in mind, and it is likely now that he will become a silent enemy of Trump, who needs him to stop fighting in Lebanon. This relationship between Washington and Israel will also come under strain and enter a new period of saliency, which might briefly mean Congress voting to withhold Israel’s funding, to remind Bibi and his coalition partners who really is the superpower (to coin Bill Clinton’s comment once in the White House when Bibi attended a press conference).

What is perhaps even more worrying is the region and how America now retreats. It is inconceivable that US forces will return to the dozen or so military bases in the Gulf, as it is unthinkable that those elites will keep the cash flowing into Wall Street. Indeed, a bundle of $3 trillion USD which Saudi Arabia and the UAE had earmarked for the US AI sector will now not make it, as those countries no longer have the cash flow in their economies, with hotels in Dubai only catering to about 10 percent capacity. Trump’s war literally sent missiles to these new economies, and the Donald cannot complain now that this cash will not make it to the US.

Yet remarkably, Trump is still dreaming. He is still delusional about who he is and what America currently is, and seems to be stuck with his own ideas which feel like they’re from the 1970s rather than 2026. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the beginning of the end. The loss of the petrodollar and the GCC countries with their fast cash feels like the first domino falling for the old empire, while Trump obsesses with tiny minutiae details which take up time posting on social media late at night. In the last days of the Roman Empire, its emperor was said to have been concerned about “Rome” – but this was not a reference to a crumbling civilisation, but to his pet chicken of the same name. When we see the puerile, juvenile row between the diminutive Georgia Meloni and Trump, there is a sense of déjà vu with Rome. A row on X which Meloni keeps alive for days might be seen as incongruous to the bigger picture of the US and EU falling into the abyss, with the EU being such a dog’s breakfast that even bankrupt Britain wouldn’t even want to re-join it now, despite most Brits in polls conceding Brexit was a failure.

The recent comments by the Saudi foreign minister might signal that KSA and the UAE are looking for a completely different defence set-up which might actually bypass the US altogether. Other countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are stepping forward and taking on the challenge by themselves, while leading the anti-Israel doctrine. It is rumoured that Bibi complained to Trump recently about Turkey’s tough talking, but Trump told him to forget about even thinking about hitting the NATO country, as it is simply out of Israel’s league – or words to that effect. But Turkey is the new enemy of Israel. That ball has been rolling for some time.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

13-18 DAYS: The PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 26, 2026

I am indebted to my new friend who is an energy expert ,and currently working in the Persian Gulf, for explaining why the US is facing a very serious risk of a domestic energy crisis. If ignorance is bliss then I’ve spent my last 71 years happily believing that the conversion of oil to fuel for cars, trucks and planes was a simple process. Boy, was I wrong. The United States is facing a potential crisis surrounding the production of diesel and aviation fuel. According to this person, who has 35 years experience in the oil industry:

The U.S. does not have a month of freely deliverable diesel in a stress event. The headline EIA number shows 106.1 million barrels of total distillate fuel oil stocks and 3.631 million b/d of four-week average distillate product supplied, implying 29.2 days on paper. But that national inventory includes barrels in pipelines, refineries, terminals, regional storage, and operational positions that cannot all be allocated immediately to critical distribution hubs.
Operational estimate: applying a 45%-60% practical deliverability factor to total distillate stocks leaves roughly 48-64 million barrels of usable, allocable diesel-equivalent supply. At 3.631 million b/d, that is approximately 13.1-17.5 days, rounded to 13-18 days.

So let me explain how he reached this conclusion. Think of the diesel buffer as the gap between when supply stops flowing and when the economy starts breaking. Thirteen days is not a comfortable cushion — it’s essentially no cushion at all, because the economy runs on diesel in ways that cannot be deferred.

Diesel is not a lifestyle fuel. It moves every truck on every highway, powers every locomotive, runs every tractor during planting and harvest, and drives every piece of heavy construction equipment. When a family decides gas prices are too high, they drive less. When a freight company decides diesel is too expensive or too scarce, it cannot defer the shipment — the grocery store shelves just go empty. Diesel demand is largely inelastic. The economy cannot negotiate with it the way it can with gasoline.

Let’s use the worst case: 13 days. Thirteen days means that if anything disrupts the supply chain — a refinery outage, a pipeline failure, a crude supply disruption — the effects reach the real economy within two weeks. There is no meaningful time to arrange alternatives. A tanker from a replacement crude source takes longer than 13 days to arrive. A refinery turnaround takes longer than 13 days to complete. The buffer is shorter than the lead time for almost every possible remedy.

The geography makes it worse. The 13-day figure is a national average, which means some regions have more and some have less. The Southeast is particularly exposed, being heavily dependent on the Colonial Pipeline, which is itself a single point of failure that demonstrated its criticality when it was shut down for six days in 2021. Six days is nearly half the total national buffer.

What about aviation fuel? Here is where the two problems collide mechanically, and why it creates a genuine bind rather than just a theoretical tradeoff.

Diesel and jet fuel are not different products from different parts of the refinery. They are competing claims on the same physical fraction of crude oil — the middle distillate cut that comes off the atmospheric distillation column in the same boiling range. Every refinery scheduling decision is, at its core, a daily argument about how to divide that fraction between the two products.

With a 13-day diesel buffer, the refinery cannot let diesel output fall. The economic and political consequences of a diesel shortage materialize too quickly and too severely. Diesel production becomes, in practical terms, the floor that cannot be breached.

Now layer in a wartime demand for military jet fuel. JP-8 is pulled from the same middle distillate fraction. The military’s operational requirements are also non-negotiable — aircraft do not fly on goodwill. So you now have two inelastic demands competing for one fixed supply of middle distillate from each barrel of crude processed.

The refinery’s response to this bind is constrained in every direction:

It cannot simply run more crude. Crude supply itself may be disrupted — this is precisely the scenario the Persian Gulf blockade creates. And even if crude is available, refinery throughput is limited by physical capacity. You cannot run 110% of nameplate capacity.

It cannot shift to lighter crude to get more barrels. Light crude produces proportionally more gasoline and less middle distillate. Running lighter crude when you need diesel and jet fuel makes the allocation problem worse, not better, because you are shrinking the pool of middle distillate that both are fighting over.

It cannot get more middle distillate out of sour crude than the chemistry allows. A barrel of sour crude from the Persian Gulf typically yields around 20–25% middle distillates by volume. That fraction is fixed by the molecular composition of the oil. You can optimize within a range, but you cannot double the yield through operational choices.

Hydrogen becomes a choke point. Making JP-8 from sour crude to military specification requires substantial hydrogen — for sulfur removal, for aromatic ring saturation to meet smoke point requirements, and for freeze point management. Making ULSD from the same sour crude also requires substantial hydrogen — even more, to reach the ≤15 ppm sulfur specification. A refinery’s hydrogen generation capacity is finite. Every cubic foot of hydrogen diverted to jet fuel processing is a cubic foot unavailable for diesel desulfurization. At the margin, maximizing JP-8 production makes the diesel quality problem worse, not just the diesel volume problem.

The certification delay adds time pressure. Switching refinery configuration between maximizing diesel and maximizing jet fuel is not instant. It takes days to a week to restabilize the unit operations and certify the product meets specification. In a 13-day buffer environment, a week of transition time is not a casual cost — it represents a material fraction of the entire safety margin consumed by the act of reconfiguring production.

Under normal peacetime conditions, refineries optimise their middle distillate split based on market prices — jet fuel commands a premium, so they lean toward jet. The diesel buffer stays comfortable and the system works.

The Iran war changes all of that simultaneously in three directions at once:

First, the diesel buffer starts shrinking. Persian Gulf sour crude — even though only 8% of US imports — supplied roughly 17% of the medium-sour grades that US complex refiners prefer for middle distillate production. That quality gap is not easily filled by Canadian heavy or domestic light sweet crude without refinery adjustment. Diesel output drops or becomes more expensive per barrel just as the buffer needs defending.

Second, military JP-8 demand spikes. A naval campaign in the Persian Gulf, sustained air operations, and a mobilised logistics tail consume enormous quantities of aviation fuel. The military doesn’t queue behind civilian demand — it has priority. So the refinery is simultaneously being squeezed from both ends of the middle distillate barrel: the military is claiming more jet fuel from the top, and the diesel buffer is bleeding out from the bottom.

Third, the refinery cannot easily solve this by running harder. As explained earlier, maximising JP-8 from sour crude requires pulling a lighter, narrower distillate cut. This is precisely the action that reduces diesel yield — the heavier tail of the middle distillate that would have become diesel is either lost to the vacuum unit or downcycled to fuel oil. The more aggressively refineries respond to military jet fuel demand, the faster the diesel buffer erodes.

This creates a three-way constraint with no clean solution:

  • Protect the diesel buffer → limit JP-8 output → constrain military operations
  • Maximise JP-8 for military → draw down diesel buffer → trigger civilian supply cascade before the war ends
  • Try to do both → run refineries at maximum utilisation → lose the ability to flex for any further shock, with no margin for equipment failures, maintenance, or a second disruption

The 13-day buffer is what makes this bind acute rather than manageable. With sixty days of diesel inventory, a refinery operator can tolerate shifting the middle distillate split toward jet fuel for several weeks without civilian consequences. With thirteen days, the same shift starts a visible countdown almost immediately. Now do you understand why Donald Trump signed the MoU with Iran?

If the United States decides to renew its bombing campaign of Iran, that would likely trigger the stress event outlined above. Based on that fact I believe that Donald Trump, notwithstanding his threats, will not run the risk of crashing the US economy by bombing Iran again.

Video interviews

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | Comments Off on 13-18 DAYS: The PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »