US Bombing of Iran Harms Non-Proliferation
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
Iran didn’t violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States did. When the U.S. bombed Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities on June 23, they didn’t just violate the cardinal rule of international law by attacking a sovereign nation, without Security Council approval, that had neither attacked it nor threatened to attack it. They also violated the NPT. In doing so, the U.S. may have done irreparable harm to the non-proliferation regime.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was protected by the “inalienable right to a civilian [nuclear] program.” Iran and the world watched, not only as that nonnuclear umbrella collapsed and failed to protect Iran, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the guardian of the non-proliferation regime, whispered barely a criticism. Iran’s parliamentary speaker has criticized the IAEA for having “refused to even pretend to condemn the [American] attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Iran has accused IAEA director general Rafael Grossi of issuing a “biased” report on Iran’s nuclear program right as Trump’s sixty day window for diplomacy was closing that could be used as a “pretext” for the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. was complicit in using the resolution that followed the report, since only 19 out of 33 countries voted in favor of it after the U.S. pressured eight countries they saw as “persuadable… to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all.”
After Grossi clarified that the IAEA “did not find in Iran elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon” and concluded that “We have not seen elements to allow us, as inspectors, to affirm that there was a nuclear weapon that was being manufactured or produced somewhere in Iran,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the clarification came “too late.” He blasted Grossi for “obscure[ing] this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalize by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext… to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities.” Baghaei finished with the accusation that Grossi “betrayed the non-proliferation regime.”
On June 20, Iran filed a formal complaint against Grossi to the Security Council, accusing him of a “clear and serious breach of the principle of impartiality.” Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, criticized Grossi’s failure to condemn American and Israeli threats and use of force against its peaceful nuclear program as demanded by IAEA resolutions “which categorically prohibit any threat or use of force against nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes.” He said that Grossi’s “passivity… amounts to de facto complicity.”
On June 25, the Iranian parliament approved a bill suspending – but not yet terminating – its cooperation with the IAEA. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf explained the passage of the bill by saying that the IAEA “has put its international credibility up for sale” because it “did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” “For this reason,” he said, “the AEOI [the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] will suspend its cooperation with the Agency until the security of its nuclear facilities is guaranteed.”
The next day, the Guardian Council approved the bill. The spokesperson for the Council said that “considering… the attacks carried out… against the peaceful nuclear facilities of our country… the government is obliged to suspend any cooperation with the IAEA until the principles ensuring… the security of nuclear scientists’ centers and ensuring the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran to benefit from all rights stipulated in Article 4 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly concerning uranium enrichment.” Having been approved by the Guardian Council, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says the bill is now “binding.” That means, he says, that “From now on, our relationship and cooperation with the [IAEA] will take a new form.”
The great risk now is that Iran could withdraw from the NPT altogether. When I asked former Iranian nuclear negotiator [ret] Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian if this failure of the NPT might move Iran to withdraw from the treaty, he answered, “Perhaps Iran does not rush to withdraw but ultimately this could be a serious option.”
Having its legal nuclear facilities bombed by a nuclear power who is a signatory to the NPT could convince Iran that membership in the NPT is harmful to it. Mousavian has pointed out that countries that did develop nuclear weapons – which Iran did not – outside of the NPT “have remained immune from military attacks.” Trump and the U.S. have not bombed North Korea. “It is only natural that following the military attack,” Mousavian writes, “Iran would reconsider its nuclear strategy, including its continued membership in the NPT.” And that, Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, says “is quite likely.”
The danger is that the American bombing could eliminate a civilian nuclear program that was operating under the watchful international eye of an unprecedented inspection regime with one that is rebuilt entirely out of the eyes of international inspectors.
Sina Toossi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, told me that “far from neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the war may have pushed Tehran closer to covert weaponization under a hardened doctrine.”
Withdrawal from the NPT would not entail that Iran has made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Blinding the international community, led by the United States, may be seen by Iran as the only viable strategy for reconstituting a civilian nuclear program that would otherwise be bombed each time it reemerged.
The decision by the Trump administration to drop bunker buster bombs on Iran’s legal, civilian nuclear facilities, whether it “severely damaged” them, “obliterated” them or merely “set them back,” is that much more than the nuclear facilities were damaged. Under the guise of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, the U.S. may have so discredited the NPT that they have “severely damaged” and “set back” the world’s hard won non-proliferation regime.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net
Iran unity foils West plans for regime change: Responsible Statecraft
Al Mayadeen | July 1, 2025
Washington is now looking into dividing Iran, with neo-conservative think tanks openly promoting the Balkanization of Iran, a strategy that is bound to destabilize Iran and the region, according to Responsible Statecraft on Tuesday.
United States foreign policy has a troubling tendency to promote the fragmentation of nations it deems adversarial.
Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their allies in the European Parliament are openly pushing for Iran’s disintegration, a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance not only from Iranians but also from US partners in the region.
Think tanks push for fragmentation based on ethnicity
Amid the war “Israel” waged on Iran in mid-June, FDD analyst Brenda Shaffer posited that Iran’s ethnically diverse population structure presented an exploitable strategic weakness.
According to Responsible Statecraft, Shaffer advocated for the disintegration of Iran along ethnic divisions, drawing parallels to the breakup of Yugoslavia, while concentrating significant efforts on fostering separatist movements in Iranian Azerbaijan, home to Iran’s largest ethnic minority group, the Azeris. However, she consistently failed to acknowledge her ties to the Azeri state oil company SOCAR.
Her position mirrors a recent Jerusalem Post editorial that, during the initial wave of triumphalism following “Israel’s” strikes in this month’s war on Iran, urged Trump to publicly endorse the dismemberment of Iran.
The editorial specifically advocated for forming a “Middle East coalition for Iran’s partition” while proposing “security guarantees for Sunni, Kurdish and Balochi minority regions seeking independence,” in addition to previously endorsing US and Israeli support for the secession of northwestern Iran’s Azeri-majority areas referred to as “South Azerbaijan” from Iran.
Popular uprising or scenarios for regime change?
Meanwhile, a foreign affairs spokesperson representing a centrist liberal faction within the European Parliament organized a discussion forum titled “The Future of Iran,” which while framed as an examination of potential pathways for what they termed a “successful” uprising against the current Iranian government, appeared to focus primarily on scenarios for regime change.
The panel’s composition featured only two Iranian speakers, both ethnic separatists from Azerbaijan and Ahwaz, revealing the organizer’s true agenda: promoting regime change.
Since unilaterally cutting ties with Iran’s official institutions in 2022, the European Parliament has become a platform for fringe exiled groups. These include monarchists, the controversial MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and ethnic separatists, all of whom now operate with growing visibility in EU political spaces.
Delusions of division
What these think tanks and organizations forget, Responsible Statecraft highlighted, is that Iran is not a fragile country on the brink of collapse; it is a 90-million-strong country with a deep sense of historical and cultural identity.
While the proponents of the Balkanization of Iran focus on the ethnicities in Iran, they underestimate the unifying effect of Iranian nationalism on these diverse groups.
Shervin Malekzadeh, a scholar who recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, observed that academic research overwhelmingly recognizes Iranian politics as fundamentally rooted in a profound, enduring national identity.
This identity transcends the country’s internal ideological divides, which means Iran’s political dynamics unfold within this unifying framework of nationalism, which has shaped all major factions, from monarchists to Islamists to leftists.
Foreign pressure only made Iran more united
Moreover, decades of foreign pressure, sanctions, covert ops, and war have only hardened Iran’s unity, making the separatist approach dangerously naive; this approach, pushed heavily by pro-“Israel” neocons, already failed in Iraq and Syria, leaving chaos instead of victory.
This approach further demonstrates its advocates’ glaring disregard for actual conditions, as seen with Shaffer, a leading proponent of Azerbaijani irredentism, who even applauded Israeli strikes on Tabriz, the cultural and economic center of Iranian Azerbaijan.
Beyond being morally reprehensible, this strategy fundamentally misreads Iran’s domestic realities, with Shaffer and like-minded advocates operating under the flawed assumption that increased external pressure on Tehran would spark rebellions among Azeris and other minority groups against the central government.
Contrary to separatist expectations, “Israel’s” recent attack produced the same rally-around-the-flag effect seen across Iran, demonstrating how deeply Iranian Azerbaijanis are woven into the national fabric, as evidenced by the fact that both the country’s highest officials, Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei and President Massoud Pezeshkian, are of Azeri heritage.
Tehran emerges stronger as Netanyahu’s Iran war backfires: FP
Al Mayadeen | July 1, 2025
In a scathing analysis of the recent 12-day Israeli war on Iran published by Foreign Policy (FP) on Tuesday, a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy, Sina Toossi, argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s high-stakes offensive not only failed to achieve its strategic aims but also significantly undermined “Israel’s” long-term deterrence. The war ended swiftly, leaving behind no decisive victory.
The operation began with a wave of covert actions, decades of intelligence work culminating in drones assembled inside Iran, sleeper cells launching bombings, and high-profile assassinations. These were soon followed by a series of conventional airstrikes on military and nuclear sites, including Natanz and Fordow. But as Toossi notes, the campaign extended far beyond strategic targets: residential areas, prisons, media offices, and police stations were also struck, indicating a broader attempt to incite chaos and unrest.
According to the FP, the human cost was staggering. At least 610 Iranians were killed, including 49 women, 13 children, and five healthcare workers, with nearly 5,000 more injured. Medical facilities and emergency services were also hit. In response, Iranian missile and drone strikes on “Israel” killed at least 28 settlers, injured over 3,200, and displaced more than 9,000. Public infrastructure and buildings sustained extensive damage.
War on Iran fell far short of its objectives
Despite Netanyahu’s declared intention to cripple Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, Toossi argues the campaign fell far short of its objectives. Iran’s retaliation was swift and calculated, targeting Israeli settlements and strategic assets, reported FP. After the United States joined by bombing Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran escalated further, striking the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a move that drew Washington deeper into the war.
Just 12 days after “Israel’s” initial strikes, a cease-fire was reached under undisclosed terms, leaving the regional balance precariously unresolved.
While “Israel” managed to inflict tactical damage on Iranian command and scientific infrastructure, Toossi stresses that strategic outcomes are what truly matter, and by that measure, the war was a failure.
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure appears largely intact. Intelligence reports suggest sensitive materials may have been moved ahead of the attacks. Moreover, Iran had already initiated construction of a fortified, undisclosed enrichment facility, possibly untouched.
The aftermath of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities
In a critical shift, Iran’s parliament passed a bill to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency just days after the cease-fire. One Iranian lawmaker stated, “Why was our nuclear facility attacked, and you remained silent? Why did you give the green light for these actions?”
As Toossi warns, by attacking nuclear sites while demanding oversight, the US and “Israel” may have inadvertently legitimized the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.
The FP argues that its ballistic arsenal successfully pierced both Israeli and US air defenses, targeting refineries, military bases, and research centers. Though censorship in “Israel” limited public data, over 41,000 compensation claims were reportedly filed due to war damage. Meanwhile, “Israel” expended an estimated $500 million worth of US-supplied THAAD missile interceptors.
A ceasefire was necessary to ‘save Israel’
Economic disruption was also severe. Ben Gurion Airport was shut down, financial activity slowed, and capital outflows surged. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon bluntly stated that the ceasefire was necessary to “save Israel,” while Donald Trump admitted that “Israel” had been hit “very hard.”
In a revealing statement, Trump also announced that China would be permitted to buy Iranian oil to help Iran “get back into shape.”
That said, Toossi highlights how Iran’s retaliatory strategy was calibrated and symbolic. After an Israeli drone strike on an Iranian refinery, Iran responded by hitting a refinery in Haifa. After “Israel” attacked suspected nuclear research centers, Iran struck the Weizmann Institute of Science near Tel Aviv, long believed to be part of “Israel’s” nuclear research apparatus. These strikes demonstrated Tehran’s capacity for restrained but potent retaliation.
On the domestic front, instead of sparking internal collapse, the war triggered a surge of national unity across Iran. As Toossi observes, the strikes unified a polarized society in resistance to foreign aggression. Civil society, from Gen Z activists to artists and athletes, mobilized in solidarity. Citizens opened their homes to the displaced, and the indiscriminate loss of civilian life only deepened collective resilience.
Crucially, this war erupted just as Iran was re-engaging in nuclear negotiations with the Trump administration. Many Iranians had pinned hopes on the election of reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian and his promise of diplomacy and economic reform. Instead, they watched their country being bombed during peace efforts.
Netanyahu’s war boosts Iran’s unity and deterrence
Toossi contends that the long-standing belief in Washington that Iran’s government is one blow away from collapse has now been discredited. Far from eliminating the threat posed by Iran, Netanyahu’s war has exposed “Israel’s” vulnerabilities and rallied Iranian nationalism, the author stressed.
In a paradoxical outcome, the war may enhance Iran’s diplomatic leverage. Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff continue to insist that Tehran must abandon uranium enrichment, yet Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have reaffirmed: “Iran will never give up this right.” Meanwhile, Trump has floated lifting sanctions and allowing Chinese oil purchases as part of “great progress” toward de-escalation.
“Smart War” and State Terrorism
By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations.
The message was posted to the president’s Truth Social account, shared on X/Twitter, and then picked up by all major mass media outlets, making it common knowledge to everyone on the planet that Trump was preparing to join Israel’s war on Iran.
On June 17, 2025, President Trump directly threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with assassination.
Sometimes crazy people issue vague threats which they have no power to follow through on. Such persons are best avoided and ignored. In order to be effective, death threats must be credible, otherwise there is no fear generated in the persons being addressed, for they recognize that they are dealing with no more and no less than a feckless buffoon. Whatever one may think of President Trump, his menacing social media posts are credible threats, given his official role as commander-in-chief with the power to unleash formidable military might on the people of the world. In case anyone did not already know this, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded the press corps on June 20, 2025, that “Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.”
Trump’s warning to the entire population of Tehran that they should all evacuate the city was a fortiori a credible threat, given the U.S. government’s wide-ranging “War on Terror,” during which both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and occupied. Several other countries were subjected to thousands of missile strikes “outside areas of active hostilities,” that is, where there were no U.S. troops present and thus no force-protection pretext for the use of state-inflicted homicide.
Verbal threats of the use of deadly force by a president often culminate in military action because the commander may be easily persuaded by his advisors to believe that he (and the nation) will lose credibility if he fails to follow through on his words, which, he is told, would be a sign of weakness. Predictably enough, then, on June 22, 2025, President Trump delivered on his threat to bomb Iran, although he claimed to have struck only three specific sites: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. It was at these sites where nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear arms were allegedly underway. The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported to members of congress in March 2025: “The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
On June 17, 2025, when a journalist reminded Trump of Director Gabbard’s assessment, the president bluntly blurted out, “I don’t care what she said.” It has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily informed not by his own cabinet but by the intelligence services of Israel, above all, Mossad.
For anyone unfamiliar with the modus operandi and general demeanor of Mossad, I recommend the films Munich (2005), The Gatekeepers (2012), and The Operative (2020).
That Trump has been decisively influenced by the government of Israel was further evidenced by his direct threat against Supreme Leader Khamenei and the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades.
On June 20, 2025, two days before Trump’s missile strikes on Iran, Director Gabbard did an about-face, insisting that her earlier testimony before congress had been misrepresented and ignored her finding that Iran had been enriching uranium:
Gabbard’s retraction, or creative reinterpretation, of her former testimony bears similarities to the case of Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, who initially opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then for reasons which remain unclear suddenly became one of the mission’s most ardent supporters. In Powell’s case, he went even so far as to present the case for war to a less-than-enthusiastic United Nations Security Council. After a colorful Powerpoint presentation featuring an array of ersatz evidence—ranging from speculation about Iraq’s aluminum test tubes, to a receipt for “yellow cake” purchase, to photos of what were claimed to be mobile chemical labs—Powell recognized that he did not have the votes needed to secure U.N. approval and so abruptly withdrew the war resolution. The United States then proceeded to invade Iraq unimpeded, claiming, among other things, that the 2003 military intervention was legal because of previous U.N. resolutions violated by President Saddam Hussein. In other words, after having sought U.N. approval, the U.S. government suddenly denied that it needed such approval before invading Iraq anyway.
Unlike George W. Bush, when Donald Trump bombed Iran “at a time of his choosing,” as they say, he did not have the support of the U.S. congress. Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump all depended on the Bush-era AUMFs as they continued to lob missiles on several countries beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, et al. But the carte blanche AUMFs granted to Bush in 2001 and 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neocons naturally devise all manner of interpretive epicyclic curlicues to arrive at the conclusion that Iran is in fact “fair game” for bombing. As stated and ratified, however, the AUMFs granted by congress to George W. Bush were intended to facilitate the U.S. president’s quest to bring justice to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 crimes.
Lest anyone forget, President Trump was not unique among twenty-first century presidents in bombing countries whose residents had nothing to do with the shocking demolition of the World Trade Center. President Obama effected a regime change in Libya without securing the support of congress because, he claimed, it was not really a war, since he was not deploying any ground troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to persuade Obama that “Gaddafi must go!” She later characterized the Libya intervention as a shining example of “smart power at its best,” even though a few U.S. State Department officials, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steele, were killed in the post-bombing mêlée. Today, Libya is essentially a failed state. Obama himself has confessed that the biggest regret and worst mistake of his presidency (reported in The Guardian) was not having a plan for the aftermath of his supposedly “humanitarian” intervention, which he enlisted NATO to carry out.
In the immediate aftermath of the June 22, 2025 missile strikes, Trump officials followed the Obama administration’s Libya playbook in insisting that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not the beginning of a long, protracted engagement in Iran. This was meant to draw contrast with the unpopular multi-decade wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ignoring Trump’s threat to the residents of Tehran, Vice President J.D. Vance and others recited the Obama administration refrain that the mission was “not a war” with Iran. As Vance explained, the limited missile strikes were carried out only in order to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the government of Iran, a total of 610 people were killed and thousands more injured by the bombs of the U.S. and Israeli governments. However, none of the persons who perished were Americans.
Availing himself of the Obama-era “smart war” trope, Vice President Vance also observed that Trump’s preemptive military strikes differed from those of his predecessors because, unlike Trump, the previous presidents were “dumb”. Oliver Stone produced a film, W (2008), which persuasively portrays Bush as a half-wit, but no one ever suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney or the cadre of other war profiteers and neocons who coaxed Bush into preemptively attacking Iraq were stupid.
In any case, by now, the U.S. government has directly massacred so many thousands of people (and millions indirectly) in so many different countries, often located outside areas of active hostility (war zones or lands under occupation), that the citizenry has become largely inured to it all. Tragically, over the course of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an apparently permanent paradigm shift to the profligate state use of homicide to terrorize and kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous or even suspicious by U.S. officials or their contracted analysts. This radical paradigm shift was made possible by a new technology: the weaponized drone, which began to be used by the Bush administration first under a pretext of force protection in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush team effectively initiated the Drone Age by firing a missile on a group of terrorist suspects driving down a road in Yemen on November 3, 2002.
As the Global War on Terror stretched on and angry jihadists began to proliferate and spread throughout the region, President Obama assumed the drone warrior mantel with alacrity, opting to kill rather than capture thousands of suspected terrorists outside areas of active hostilities. In his enthusiasm for drone killing, Obama went even so far as to intentionally and premeditatedly hunt down and kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (located in Yemen at the time, in 2011), without indicting him, much less allowing him to stand trial, for his alleged crimes.
Following the Obama precedent, in 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron opted to execute British nationals Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan, who were suspected of complicity in terrorism, after they had fled from the U.K. to Syria, and despite the fact that the parliament had rejected Cameron’s call for war on Syria. Cameron’s missile strikes against British citizens located abroad was all the more surprising because capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. as well as the European Union, of which Britain was a member at that time.
One state-perpetrated assassination leads to another, and on January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing via drone strike of a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, who was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission at the time. Trump openly proclaimed, and indeed bragged, that the homicide, which he authorized, was intentional and premeditated. According to the president, Soleimani was responsible for past and future attacks against both Israel and the United States. The summary execution of a specific, named individual would have been considered an illegal act of assassination in centuries past but today is accepted by many as an “act of war” for the sophomoric reason that it is carried out by a military strike rather than undercover spies armed with poisons or garrottes.
In view of Trump’s unabashed, vaunted, assassination of Soleimani, and his full-throated support of Netanyahu, the threat to liquidate Supreme Leader Khamenei was just as credible as the “evacuation order” to the entire population of Tehran. Leaders today exult over their use of cutting-edge technology to eliminate specific, named individuals, as though summarily executing the victims were obviously permissible, given that targeted killing is now regarded by governments the world over as one of the military’s standard operating procedures. Such unlawful actions were fully normalized as a tool of “smart war” during the eight-year Obama presidency.
Shortly after Trump officials went out on the media circuit to insist that the bombing of Iran’s alleged nuclear production facilities was not the initiation of a U.S.-Iran war, Trump took to social media again, this time to suggest that his administration’s ultimate goal might really be regime change:
Less than one day later, the new official narrative became that Trump had masterfully brought the “twelve-day war” to a miraculous close, thanks to his superlative deal-making capabilities.
All of this would be risible, if not for the fact that many millions of persons in Iran continue to live under a persistent threat of death, given the wildly unpredictable comportment of President Trump, seemingly exacerbated by his longstanding commitment to stand by Israel, regardless of how outrageously Netanyahu behaves. The more and more daring acts of assassination perpetrated by the government of Israel clearly illustrate where state-perpetrated homicide and its attendant terrorist effects under a specious guise of “smart war” eventually lead.
Targeting named terrorist suspects allegedly responsible for previous crimes swiftly expanded to include signature strikes against groups of unarmed persons designated potentially dangerous and located anywhere in the world—in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else they please. The Israeli government has even deployed exploding cellphones and car bombs, the latter of which was once a tactic primarily deployed by dissident anti-government groups and crime syndicates. The repeated use by the Israeli government of car bombs to kill research scientists illuminates the slippery slope from missile strikes outside areas of active hostilities to what are empirically indistinguishable from Mafia hits. Car bombs have long been used by the Mafia and other nongovernmental organized crime groups, but the Israeli government openly perpetrates the very same acts under cover of “national self defense”.
Washington’s normalization of assassinations has emboldened leaders such as Netanyahu, who today conducts himself according to the principle “everything is permitted” in the name of the sacrosanct State. Witness what has been going on in Gaza since October 7, 2023: terrorism, torture, starvation, and summary execution. All of this is being condoned by every leader in the world who continues to voice support for, or even aids and abets, Netanyahu’s mass slaughter. This support for mass slaughter is provided ostensibly under the assumption that the perpetrators are doing no more and no less than defending the State of Israel.
Following the examples of U.S. Presidents Trump and Obama, and UK Prime Minister Cameron, all of whom publicly vaunted their assassination prowess, Prime Minister Netanyahu, having apparently recognized that the implement of homicide is in fact morally irrelevant, openly and brazenly executes persons determined by Mossad to be dangerous, with no concern for the thousands of innocent persons’ lives ruined along the way. In Operation Red Wedding, the Israeli government claimed to have dispatched, in a matter of minutes, thirty senior officials associated with the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) including military chiefs and top commanders located throughout Iran at the opening of the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War.” The operation was praised by the pro-Israel media as featuring “bespoke” acts of targeted killing made possible by “pattern of life” intelligence.
Drone assassination, successfully marketed by the Obama team as “smart war,” smoothed the way to the uncritical acceptance by many citizens of the reprobate expansion of state killing to include acts historically committed by members of nongovernmental organized crime. Looking back, the rebranding by U.S. officials of political assassination as an act of war, provided only that the implement of death is a missile, was a slick and largely successful way of persuading U.S. citizens to believe that extrajudicial, state-inflicted homicide abroad is an acceptable means to conflict resolution. Even though it bypasses all of the republican procedures forged over millennia, including judicial means, for reconciling the rival claims of adversaries.
In the maelstrom of the twenty-first-century wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, assassination was labeled targeted killing and successfully sold to politicians as “smart war,” a surgically precise way to defeat the enemy without sacrificing combatant troops. Whichever label is used, assassination or targeted killing, acts of summary execution by governments involve the intentional, premeditated elimination of persons suspected to be possibly dangerous, a criterion so vague as to permit the targeting of virtually any able-bodied person who happens to be located in a place where terrorists are thought to reside.
There are three differences between “targeted killing” carried out by drone warriors and assassination. First, the weapon being used is a missile. Second, drone operators wear uniforms, while undercover assassins and hitmen do not. Third, far from being “surgically precise,” drone warfare increases the slaughter of innocent bystanders in their own civil societies, which is facilely dismissed as the “collateral damage” of war. In this way, the advent of lethal drones and their use outside areas of active hostility has served to terrorize entire populations forced to endure the hovering above their heads of machines which may—or may not—emit missiles at any given time on any given day.
Credible death threats to heads of state and evacuation orders issued to millions of people not only terrorize the persons being addressed, but also undermine the security of the citizens of the United States. The populace will bear the brunt of the blowback caused by such reckless behavior on the part of officials who operate with effective impunity and are ignorant of or oblivious to the nation’s republican origins. By launching preemptive missile strikes, the Pentagon does not protect but sabotages the interests and well-being of not only U.S. citizens but also the citizens of the world.
Nonetheless, many U.S. politicians and members of the populace, along with heads of state such as Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, et al., having been thoroughly seduced by the “smart war” marketing line, appear to have no problem whatsoever with the tyrannical and arguably deranged death threats of the U.S. president. They have become altogether habituated to the assassination of persons now regarded as a standard operating procedure of war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively condoned Trump’s behavior by issuing this statement in the aftermath of the June 22, 2025 U.S. missile strikes against Iran: “Iran must never acquire the bomb.”
If terrorism is the arbitrary killing of or threat of death against innocent persons, then there can be no further doubt that the largest state sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism in the twenty-first century is in fact the U.S. government. President Trump inherited from President Obama and his mentor, drone-killing czar John Brennan (appointed by Obama as CIA director in 2013), the capacity to terrorize entire civilian populations and execute individuals at his caprice. No less than every drone strike launched in the vicinity of civilian populations beyond war zones, Trump’s completely unhinged threat to a group of people with nowhere to seek refuge, and no way of knowing whether the U.S. president is issuing a serious warning or simply bluffing, attempting some sort of perverse ploy to bring Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei back to the negotiation table (where he was, before Israel began bombing Iran), was an act of terrorism.
It is not “smart” to terrorize millions of human beings in the name of preventing terrorism. It is a contradiction, pure and simple.
Laurie Calhoun is a Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times,We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique. In 2015, she began traveling around the world while writing. In 2020, she returned to the United States, where she remained until 2023 as a result of the COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by governments nearly everywhere.
Pakistan won’t remain silent if US, Israel target Ayatollah Khamenei: Senator
Press TV – June 30, 2025
A Pakistani senator has condemned a threat by the US and Israel to target Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, saying it will trigger a response from all Muslim nations, including Pakistan.
Allama Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a member of the Pakistani Senate, described Ayatollah Khamenei as a religious leader and a Marja (religious authority), who is also a political leader.
Religious authorities issued a fatwa (religious decree) that says anyone who threatens the Leader is an enemy of God, whose punishment is death in Islam, he noted.
Between June 13 and 24, Israel waged a blatant and unprovoked aggression against Iran, assassinating many high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.
On June 22, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
During the 12-day war, US President Donald Trump claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was “an easy target.”
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also ranted that the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei would “end” the war.
The Pakistani senator said Trump and Netanyahu should know that if an attack is carried out, it will not just be an attack on Iran, and all Muslims in the world will respond to it.
“We will respond in Pakistan as well; if such an action is taken, no American will remain in Pakistan. We will not remain silent when they (Trump and Netanyahu) do not abide by any law,” he added.
On Sunday, senior Iranian clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani issued religious decrees against any attack or threat to Ayatollah Khamenei.
They said that any person or regime that threatens or attacks the leadership and religious authority to harm the Islamic Ummah and its sovereignty is subject to the ruling of confrontation.
Agent of Chaos: Lindsey Graham’s Power Depends on War
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 30.06.2025
Hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham got President Donald Trump to strike Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal. What’s he gaining from the Middle East war?
Darling of Jewish Lobby
- The Republican Jewish Coalition was Graham’s top donor in his 2020 re-election, giving $111,000 (OpenSecrets).
- Over $1 million more came via RJC, according to RJC’s executive director Matt Brooks.
- Brooks: “There is nobody more important in the US Senate” for the US-Israel partnership.
- He raised $109 million in total.
RJC: Longtime Supporter of Graham
- RJC leaders Larry Mizel and Sam Fox backed Graham’s 2014 re-election.
- Fox gave $50,000 and Mizel $100,000 to his super PAC, West Main Street Values.
- RJC board member Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a fundraiser for Graham’s 2016 presidential bid.
AIPAC is Another Backer
- Graham major backer, billionaire Mizel, also sits on AIPAC’s board — the top pro-Israel lobby in the US.
- Haaretz calls Mizel a key booster of pro-Israel Republicans who opens doors in Israel’s power circles for GOP politicians.
More Wars – More Defense Contractors Backing
- Lockheed Martin gave Graham $102,000 in 2020, according to OpenSecrets
- Boeing added $80,700 in 2024.
- The Intercept notes most cash comes from defense-linked individual donors — like Humvee mogul Ron Perelman, who gave $500,000 to Graham’s 2016 run.
Graham’s 2026 Senate Bid at Stake
- Graham’s hawkish Iran stance apparently ties to his 2026 ambitions – he needs big donor cash.
- RJC backs him as “one of the strongest advocates for the US Jewish community.”
- Defense firms will pay too—if he keeps the bombs dropping.
Can international institutions be reformed?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025
It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.
But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.
However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.
That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.
It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.
This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.
Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.
Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.
All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.
In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.
Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.
The list could go on.
The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?
Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?
Most Americans Believe Israel Has Too Much Influence on US Policy – Poll
Sputnik – 27.06.2025
More than half of Americans believe Israel wields too much influence on US policy, a survey conducted by US research firm Tyson Group showed on Friday.
Specifically, 54% of respondents said that Israel’s influence is excessive, while 27% disagreed with this position, according to the survey.
Among Democrats, 62% agreed with the position, compared to 43% of Republicans and 44% of senior Americans aged 65 and over.
The majority of Americans, 54%, also believe recent US airstrikes significantly set back the development of Iran’s nuclear progam, including 19% who state that it was “completely obliterated,” the survey showed.
Meanwhile, 75% of respondents are concerned that the conflict could escalate into a larger war, while 67% believe that the US could launch new military action against Iran, according to the survey.
The survey was conducted from June 25-26 among 1,027 US adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Ceasefire without terms: Iran’s strategic deterrence in shadow of 9,379 kg
By Amro Allan | Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
12 days of war between Iran and the Israeli-US alliance have ended, not with an agreement, treaty, or even mutual understanding, but with silence. US President Donald Trump announced a unilateral ceasefire following an Israeli request, and after consultation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. Qatar, acting as an intermediary, passed on the message to Tehran, which acknowledged the mediation without committing to any terms. No documents were signed, no concessions were made, and no conditions agreed. What has emerged is a calm devoid of consensus, a tactical pause, not an end to the war.
Yet for all its fragility, this ceasefire reveals something critical: Iran endured, Iran responded, and most significantly, Iran preserved what it considers the cornerstone of its strategic deterrence, its nuclear capability and its sovereignty in the face of overwhelming pressure. And for a nation that has lived through decades of sanctions, threats, and assassinations, survival on its own terms is not defeat, it is a form of victory.
Victory without capitulation
From Tel Aviv and Washington, the war was framed as a swift punitive campaign meant to decapitate Iran’s nuclear programme and reassert Israeli regional dominance. Netanyahu boasted of air superiority, missile interception, and the assassination of key Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. He claimed “Israel” had “dismantled” Iran’s missile programme and brought its nuclear efforts to a halt.
But such triumphalism proved premature, and ultimately misleading. The final missiles fired before the ceasefire originated from Iranian launchers, employing a strategic class of weaponry deployed for the first time in this conflict. Strikes on Tel Aviv, Haifa, and strategic military targets pierced “Israel’s” multi-layered air defence systems and killed seven. These were not symbolic responses; they were calibrated strikes executed under pressure, revealing Tehran’s ability to absorb an attack and immediately retaliate.
From Iran’s perspective, the war did not end in surrender, nor even in compromise. Iranian officials confirmed that while key facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan were targeted, critical material, including an estimated 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium, was relocated to fortified and undisclosed sites before the first missiles struck. Iran suffered damage, but not disarmament. Its ability to resume nuclear enrichment, or even accelerate it, remains fully intact.
The untouched core: 9,379 kilograms
The most recent IAEA report from May 2025 offers the most telling figures: Iran holds 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium at various purities. Of these, 8,840 kilograms are enriched to 5% or less, usable for civilian reactors and medical isotopes. A further 130 kilograms of uranium exists in intermediate purity levels, mostly in scrap form.
The strategic concern, and Tehran’s most potent leverage, lies in the 408.6 kilograms enriched to 60%, a step away from weapons-grade 90% enrichment. According to nuclear experts, this stockpile could provide material for up to nine nuclear warheads if further refined. Iranian officials assert that none of this material was compromised during the bombing campaign and that their pre-emptive relocations prevented a nuclear or environmental catastrophe.
The IAEA has acknowledged that it detected no abnormal radiation levels post-strikes, suggesting no containment breach occurred. However, the Agency has not been granted access to the new locations, a move Tehran justifies as a response to what it sees as an illegitimate and unprovoked military assault on safeguarded civilian nuclear infrastructure.
In this light, Iran’s refusal to disclose further details is not simply about secrecy: it is an assertion of sovereignty. It underscores a consistent Iranian position that nuclear development, so long as it remains within NPT guidelines, is a right, not a bargaining chip.
Strategic deterrence and battlefield lessons
Iran’s response went beyond merely absorbing damage. It turned the battlefield into a proving ground for its missile, drone, and cyber capabilities. Iranian forces launched hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli defences entirely, signalling not just tactical innovation but strategic maturity. It demonstrated that its command-and-control structures remain functional under attack, and that its military doctrine has evolved to anticipate multi-domain warfare.
Equally important is the shift in psychological warfare. For the first time, Iran shattered the long-standing regional norm against directly striking Israeli territory with sustained, high-precision attacks. It was a message: the Islamic Republic is prepared to escalate if pushed, and escalation no longer means allies in Lebanon or Iraq—it means Tehran itself.
“Israel’s” sense of impunity has been challenged. Its air defense failures in intercepting Iranian salvos have exposed critical vulnerabilities, undermining Netanyahu’s claims of “total superiority.” What once was an asymmetric confrontation tilted in “Israel’s” favour has now grown more balanced. Iran may not match “Israel’s” military hardware or American support, but it has altered the rules of engagement and redefined the costs of war.
A Ceasefire or a Countdown?
Like most previous regional confrontations, this ceasefire was not a culmination, it was an intermission. There is no written document, no internationally recognised monitoring framework, and no agreed roadmap for de-escalation. From Tehran’s point of view, this suits “Israel” and the US, both of which sought a pause, not a solution.
US President Trump’s ceasefire announcement was timed more for electoral optics than for strategic clarity. It postponed a war that risked spiralling out of control, particularly if the United States was drawn deeper into an open-ended campaign. But in doing so, it handed Iran space: space to harden its facilities, mobilise internally, and potentially accelerate a shift from nuclear ambiguity to overt deterrence.
And while Washington may consider this a temporary win, in Tehran, it’s viewed as proof that Iran’s endurance forced a nuclear superpower to back down.
Tehran has since filed a complaint with the United Nations, accusing the US and “Israel” of violating international law by targeting nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Article II of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states outside of self-defence or Security Council approval. Moreover, under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, attacks on safeguarded nuclear sites are explicitly prohibited due to the danger of radiological release and nuclear proliferation.
By failing to condemn the assault, Iran argues, the IAEA and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, risk setting a precedent that undermines the entire non-proliferation regime. The silence from international bodies has also eroded confidence in future cooperation and inspections. Why, Iranian officials ask, should Tehran continue to allow oversight if that oversight brings no protection?
The Unravelling of the JCPOA framework
With the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) already hanging by a thread since the US withdrawal in 2018, this latest episode may have finally sealed its fate. While Europe and Russia have called for renewed diplomacy, the military strikes have made a return to the previous deal politically toxic in Iran.
For many in Tehran, the JCPOA is now seen as a trap, one that offered transparency in exchange for economic relief that never came, and which left Iran’s strategic sites vulnerable to airstrikes and sabotage. In this view, returning to negotiations without structural guarantees would be naïve.
Indeed, many voices in Iran’s political establishment are calling for full withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) itself, a move that would legally unbind Iran from its current commitments and allow for open pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.
A shift toward strategic ambiguity
The consequences of the ceasefire extend far beyond Iran’s borders. In Arab capitals, there is quiet recognition that Iran has emerged more resilient and emboldened. In Tel Aviv, there is growing unease over the efficacy of existing defences. And in Washington, there is a dangerous temptation to view ambiguity as strategy.
But ambiguity, in this case, cuts both ways. Iran has preserved its right to develop nuclear technology while refusing to confirm its future intentions. Should it now cross the weaponisation threshold, it may do so without warning, rendering international diplomacy too slow to stop it. The 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium now sit in the shadows, untouched, uninspected, and more symbolically potent than ever.
If the goal of the Israeli-American air campaign was to slow down Iran’s march toward nuclear capacity, it may have done the opposite. Tehran now has every justification to argue that deterrence, not diplomacy, is its only protection against existential threats.
The reality is stark: this ceasefire has changed nothing. It has only delayed the inevitable confrontation, whether on the battlefield or in the nuclear sphere. “Israel” will continue to press for economic isolation and sabotage operations. Iran will deepen its alliances, harden its defences, and invest in further nuclear and missile development.
In truth, both parties are positioning themselves for the next phase of confrontation.
The international community, meanwhile, remains largely paralysed. With diplomacy broken, legal frameworks ignored, and verification mechanisms sidelined, the world is flying blind. The stakes are no longer theoretical. A single miscalculation could trigger a chain reaction that extends far beyond the Middle East.
The rendezvous has only been postponed
What began as an undeclared war has concluded with an undeclared pause. Yet make no mistake, this is merely the beginning of a countdown.
Iran, having absorbed an extensive assault on its territory, has emerged defiant, intact, and strategically alert. “Israel”, despite its claims, has discovered its limits. And the US, though instrumental in halting the war, has revealed the fragility of its credibility as an honest broker.
The next act may begin with an enrichment announcement, a nuclear test, or another missile barrage. For now, Tehran waits in silence, but it waits on its own terms. The world, meanwhile, must decide whether to engage that silence diplomatically, or face its consequences militarily.
Either way, the rendezvous is coming.
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/
INSANE Israel-First Admission
Glenn Greenwald | June 24, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble.
You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6v828x-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast!
Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
Follow Glenn: Twitter: 
/ ggreenwald
Instagram: 
/ glenn.11.greenwald
Who Destroyed Four World Trade Center Buildings?
Tales of the American Empire | June 19, 2025
On September 11 2001, FOUR World Trade center buildings in New York were suddenly destroyed. We are told that no one could imagine that terrorists could knock down the two World Trade Center towers, even though Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted this in his 1995 book. He warned the U.S. Congress this may happened unless the United States joined a war to expand Israel by destroying what he called terror states. Even before the smoke cleared on 9-11, the plotters blamed Osama bin Laden to block investigations into their weak official story.
Note: YouTube demonetized this video claiming “violence throughout”, even though there is no graphic violence, just some collapsing buildings often shown on television.
_____________________________________________________
“Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks”; CNN; September 17, 2001; https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16…
Related Tale: “The Empire’s Fake War on Terror”; 
• The Empire’s Fake War on Terror
Related Tale: “Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11”; • Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11
“U.S. Military Knows Israel Did 9/11 – Dr. Alan Sabrosky”; Augustus Berg; Bitchute; June 30, 2023; https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vsf4v1…
“9/9 and 9/11, 20 Years Later”; Pepe Escobar; Unz.com; September 9, 2021; https://www.unz.com/pescobar/9-9-and-…
Related Tale: “The 1993 FBI Bombing in New York; • The 1993 FBI Bombing in New York
“9/11 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes”; James Corbett; 2022; • 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes
“”The 9/11 Commission Was A FRAUD” – Curt Weldon EXPOSES CIA Cover-Up, Able Danger & Deleted Evidence”; PBD Podcast; YouTube; May 14, 2025; • “The 9/11 Commission Was A FRAUD” – Curt W…
“Rep. Curt Weldon: It’s Time to Finally Tell the Truth About 9-11”; Tucker Carlson; YouTube; April 14, 2025; • Rep. Curt Weldon: It’s Time to Finally Tel…
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Russia-Iran Cooperation & Escalation in Ukraine
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Frlom the Archives
A dark page from the CIA’s history: What was Project Artichoke, launched 74 years ago?
By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 22, 2025
One of the most useful instruments hidden behind the U.S. empire’s rhetoric of “freedom and democracy” was the Central Intelligence Agency, founded on September 18, 1947, as the successor of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
Since its creation, the CIA has carried out countless inhumane operations: assassinations, coups, drug trafficking, support for terrorism, conspiracies. The list of its crimes is endless. But among the darkest and most inhumane chapters of its record lie the notorious “mind control” experiments. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Stanislav Krapivnik: Russia-Iran Cooperation & Escalation in Ukraine
- Indonesia suspends participation in Board of Peace following attack on Iran
- ‘Operation Epic Fury’ burns an estimated $5.82 billion in just 100 hours
- Zionism’s grip over the world: From Epstein to Greater Israel
- How Israel and the FBI manipulated assassination plots to goad Trump into Iran war
- Iranian Strikes Dispel the Illusion of US Security Umbrella
- US Boasts of Destroyed Iranian Launchers Lack Credibility – Ex-DoD Official
- Europe not in position to cooperate with US and Israel against Iran
- Iran Has ‘Broken the Myth’ of Israeli Military Power: Former Pakistani Envoy
- How, and why, US data centers in the Gulf became targets of war
- If Americans Knew
- US troops were told war on Iran was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’, watchdog alleges
- Trump wants to run the show in Iran, but doesn’t know what he’s doing – Not a ceasefire Day 147
- ‘Dirty Work’ :The truth about how Israel was founded
- Mass Expulsion in Lebanon as Israel Expands War: “We Don’t Know Where to Go”
- Lies, distortions, and propaganda: how the U.S. mainstream media coverage on Iran hides the truth
- Palestinians in Gaza fear famine returning as Israel cuts off food amid Iran war
- AIPAC, other pro-Israel groups enter midterms with $100 million to spend
- Iranian girls killed by ‘double-tap’ strikes on Minab school
- Bari Weiss Is Going Full ‘Propaganda-Palooza’ With the Iran War
- Inside the Pro-Israel Campaign to Stop ‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’ From Winning an Oscar
- No Tricks Zone
- Televised! Leading German Political Candidate Tells Schoolchildren CO2 Makes Sun Hotter!
- New Study: A Century Warming Of 1.1°C Is ‘Commonplace’ And ‘Not Unusual’ During This Interglacial
- New Study: ‘Internal Noise’ And Volcanic Forcing Can Trigger 10-15°C Warming Within Decades
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
- Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions Of Trees Where Once Thought To Be Barren
- New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
Aletho News 