US Would Not Intervene If Israel Had Not Been on Brink of Defeat – Iranian Ex-Ambassador
Sputnik – 23.06.2025
The United States would not have intervened in the Middle East conflict if Israel had not been on the brink of defeat, former Iranian Ambassador to Germany Seyed Hossein Mousavian told RIA Novosti.
“Israel not only failed in its ten-day military operation against Iran but was on the verge of defeat. Had Israel not been in a crisis, the U.S. would not have intervened,” Mousavian said.
He pointed out that while Iran has suffered irreparable damage, the negative consequences of the US attack against it will also harm the United States and jeopardize regional peace and security.
“US President Donald Trump’s national security team either failed to properly assess the consequences of a U.S. military attack on Iran, or they were unable to dissuade the President—or perhaps the majority of them actually supported the decision. In any case, this event has further revealed the extent of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence over the White House,” he added.
The United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan on Sunday night. US President Donald Trump said that the strike aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He said Tehran must agree to “end this war” or face far more serious consequences.
Iran denies the military component of its nuclear project. As IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said on June 18, the agency’s inspectors have not seen concrete evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The US intelligence community, contrary to statements by President Donald Trump and Israel, believed that Iran was not seeking to create nuclear weapons, as reported by CNN. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told RIA Novosti that Iran had shown incredible patience and peacefulness over the past few years, despite Israel’s actions.
Trump aides pushed war on Iran with Mossad-fed intel, ignoring dissent
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2025
The CIA and US Central Command are being used as tools by “Israel’s” Mossad to push the United States toward a full-scale war with Iran, a senior official in US President Donald Trump’s administration told The Grayzone.
According to the official, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla regurgitated Israeli briefings, without disclosing their origin, to influence Trump directly.
The official described Ratcliffe as “Mossad’s stenographer”, arguing that Israeli intelligence shaped White House perceptions through intermediaries who bypass standard US intelligence vetting.
This manipulation completely sidelined dissenting voices, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her deputy, Joe Kent, who have raised concerns about the consequences of escalation.
This April, The Grayzone published audio of AIPAC CEO Elliott Brandt boasting about his long-standing influence over Ratcliffe, calling him a “lifeline” inside the Trump administration. The recording detailed how AIPAC cultivated not only Ratcliffe but also Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, both later appointed to key national security posts.
Waltz, according to The Grayzone, was forced out of his NSC role in May after being exposed for secretly coordinating an Iran strike plan with Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Grayzone also revealed that Rubio, now serving as acting National Security Director, holds more influence over cabinet-level operations than any official since Henry Kissinger.
Push for regime change, assassination
The Trump official also emphasized that Mossad and Israeli military briefers are singularly focused on regime change, not nuclear diplomacy. During meetings, they reportedly lobbied for the assassination of Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei.
The official added that Israeli briefings often emphasized apocalyptic scenarios, including unverified claims that Iran could hand off a nuclear weapon to Ansar Allah in under a week.
While Trump’s Iran envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly urged the president to maintain diplomatic channels, Israeli escalation strategies appeared calculated to collapse the negotiation process entirely, said The Grayzone.
Gabbard and Kent, both critical of unilateral military action, have reportedly been frozen out of meetings by Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles. Ratcliffe and Kurilla now dominate the president’s briefings. The CIA director has been accused of parroting Israeli memos, while Kurilla, dubbed “Israel’s” “favorite general”, has relentlessly made the case for direct US engagement in Iran.
As of June 13, Tel Aviv launched unilateral strikes on Iran, reportedly rushing to act before Kurilla’s retirement in July. Some former Pentagon officials suggested Kurilla’s presence was a deciding factor for Israeli timing.
Hiroshima-like horrors if US joins war
As reported by The Grayzone, at a June 8 Camp David meeting, Ratcliffe reportedly used a clumsy football metaphor to argue Iran was just “one yard away” from developing a nuclear bomb. Two days later, Gabbard released a video warning of Hiroshima-like horrors if warmongers pushed the US into conflict with an allegedly nuclear-capable state. Trump was said to be enraged.
By June 20, Gabbard publicly reaffirmed loyalty to Trump, though her assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability remained unchanged, claiming that while Iran could assemble a bomb in weeks or months, it had not yet done so.
Vice President JD Vance has reportedly held parallel Iran briefings, but Trump’s exposure remains largely confined to Fox News and advisors aligned with Israeli policy, according to The Grayzone.
According to former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Fox has effectively become “a 24/7 commercial for war on Iran,” prompting him to call for a Foreign Agent Registration Act investigation.
As Trump returns to Washington, the former official told The Grayzone, “The party is on,” suggesting the president had already decided to act on Tel Aviv’s behalf, which, in fact, materialized early June 22, with the US conducting airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Iran warns of NPT withdrawal, Strait of Hormuz closure after US attack
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2025
Following the United States’ airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, senior Iranian lawmakers have raised the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation.
The warnings come after US President Donald Trump announced, in a post in Truth Social, on Sunday at dawn, that the United States carried out what he described as a “very successful attack” on three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Esmail Kowsari, a prominent member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in Parliament, affirmed that the country had already implemented protective measures to safeguard its nuclear infrastructure. He dismissed allegations of severe damage to Iran’s nuclear program, calling them “baseless claims,” and insisted that “Tehran has accurate intelligence disproving such assertions.”
Kowsari revealed that authorities are actively weighing a possible exit from the NPT. “We are reviewing the option of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he said, noting that the parliamentary committee would soon hold an emergency session to assess the American attack and formulate Iran’s official response.
Reiterating Iran’s commitment to Resistance, Kowsari warned that “our armed forces will certainly continue striking the Zionist entity,” adding, “US military bases across the region will not remain secure. Hitting them will be far easier than targeting the Israeli regime.”
He further cautioned that Iran is prepared to escalate militarily if necessary, stating, “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is on the table. We will definitely implement it if the situation requires.”
‘Iran will respond decisively’
In a related comment, Sara Fallahi, another member of the parliamentary committee, told Tasnim News that a forceful response is inevitable. “Iran will respond decisively,” she said, adding that retaliation could involve “a full withdrawal from the NPT and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee head, Abbas Golroo, reinforced that position in a statement posted on X, asserting that “Iran has the legal right to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) based on its Article 10, following US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.”
Article 10 of the NPT provides that any member state has “the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.”
IAEA announces emergency meeting following US strikes
In response to the escalating crisis, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi announced an emergency session of the agency’s Board of Governors scheduled for Monday in Vienna.
“In light of the urgent situation in Iran, I am convening an emergency meeting of the @IAEAorg Board of Governors for tomorrow,” Grossi posted on X on Sunday.
Separately, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization sent a formal letter to the IAEA, demanding an independent investigation into the US aggression. Iranian officials have insisted that the targeted facilities were operating under full IAEA supervision and posed no nuclear threat.
US Strikes on Iran Reckless Breach of Sovereignty – Russian Foreign Ministry
Sputnik – 22.06.2025
MOSCOW – The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as a reckless move that violates the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, international law and the UN Charter.
“The reckless decision to bomb the territory of a sovereign state, whatever the arguments, runs counter to international law, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council Resolution,” the ministry said.
It is of particular concern that the attack was carried out by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the ministry said, adding that the UN’s core body had to interfere.
“The UN Security Council should naturally take action. Confrontational behavior of the US and Israel has to be rejected collectively,” the statement read.
“We call for an end of aggression and urge efforts that will create conditions for a return to a political and diplomatic path,” the statement said.
The ministry also called on Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report impartially on the Iran attacks at the UN atomic agency’s board of governors’ meeting on Monday.
‘The US Betrayed Diplomacy’ – Iran’s FM Araghchi
Sputnik – 22.06.2025
Iran will have to respond to US attacks against Iranian nuclear sites, and is going to do so for as long as needed, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.
The United States have “betrayed diplomacy”, Araghchi said at a press conference held in Istanbul on June 22, adding that Iran now has the right to defend itself in accordance with the UN Charter.
“The US government bears full responsibility for the serious consequences of this aggression,” Araghchi said.
In the wake of the US strikes, Iran has fewer reasons to trust the West, Tehran no longer understands who it should negotiate with, he pointed out.
According Araghchi, Iran is receiving messages from the US through various channels, and if necessary, it will respond through intermediaries.
Iran now calls upon the International Atomic Energy Agency to fulfill its legal duties in response to the dangerous attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities, Araghchi stated.
The UN and the IAEA must respond to the clear violation of international law by the United States, he said, further insisting that the UN Security Council should hold an emergency meeting and condemn the US attack.
Araghchi also said that he is going to Moscow to have “serious consultations” with President Putin on Monday, June 23.
Clash of Two World Orders: Fordow Is the Excuse, Sovereignty the Target
By Peiman Salehi | Aletho News | June 22, 2025
Hours after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a direct military strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, the world stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice. This unprecedented attack, occurring in the early hours of last night, marks a significant escalation in the confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and has once again ignited fears of a broader regional—if not global—conflict.
According to Iranian state media, the American attack targeted the entrance of the Fordow nuclear enrichment site, located tens of meters underground. Despite the dramatic nature of the strike, the damage appears to be minimal. Iranian officials have called the assault a “symbolic operation” with limited strategic impact. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is expected to issue a full technical statement, but preliminary reports indicate that key centrifuges had already been removed from the Fordow and Natanz sites prior to the attack. The Iranian government further emphasized that the deep-underground design of these facilities, the result of years of indigenous scientific expertise, had neutralized any attempt to deliver a crippling blow.
This act of aggression is not only a military miscalculation but a profound political one. The U.S. administration, under Trump’s leadership, appears to have lost its strategic bearings. By resorting to force, Washington has exposed its frustration and strategic deadlock. What this attack truly represents is a failure of diplomacy, a betrayal of international norms, and a dangerous gamble rooted in outdated imperial thinking. Trump, increasingly beholden to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has allowed the Zionist regime’s narrow interests to dictate a course that risks global war. The world is now witnessing how the ambitions of a declining empire can drag the international system into chaos.
The media landscape surrounding the strike further reveals a coordinated attempt to shape the narrative. Western outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have underreported or dismissed Iran’s defensive capabilities and the limited damage incurred. In contrast, resistance-aligned media such as Al Mayadeen, Press TV, and Tasnim News have provided footage, satellite analysis, and expert interviews, revealing the superficial nature of the attack. Israeli media, which initially broadcast images from Tel Aviv and Haifa, has since restricted coverage, a move analysts interpret as an attempt to hide the psychological and infrastructural damage inflicted by previous Iranian missile strikes.
More crucially, this moment exposes the deeper ideological battle at play. Washington and Tel Aviv are not merely targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—they are targeting the very notion of Iranian sovereignty, independence, and civilizational identity. For decades, the U.S. has tolerated or ignored nuclear weapons held by regimes like Israel, India, and others. Yet Iran, which has consistently emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and whose Supreme Leader has issued religious rulings against weapons of mass destruction, remains the subject of relentless pressure and threats.
This double standard reveals the real motive: not nonproliferation, but domination. Iran stands as a civilizational alternative to the liberal hegemony of the West, especially in the post-Cold War era. Its resistance model has inspired popular movements across West Asia and beyond. And today, despite the brutality of sanctions, sabotage, and assassination campaigns, Iran remains defiant—stronger, more resilient, and more unified.
Indeed, one of the unintended consequences of the American-Israeli aggression is the strengthening of Iran’s internal unity. Where once some questioned Iran’s regional alliances, now many recognize their strategic depth. It is clear why Iran built partnerships with Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and other resistance groups: to keep the battle outside its borders and to prepare for precisely this moment. Iran has yet to request support from these allies, has not activated its naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz, and has not called on China, Russia, or Pakistan for direct intervention. Yet all these options remain on the table. This calculated restraint underscores Iran’s confidence and its desire to prove that it can confront Israel independently.
However, should the U.S. persist in its aggression, it is likely that Iran’s allies will respond. A wider conflict could pull in China and Russia, both of whom have signaled support for Iran’s right to defend itself. Pakistan has openly declared that it will not stand idly by if Iran is attacked. What we are witnessing may very well be the beginning of a war that accelerates the decline of American unipolarity and ushers in a truly multipolar world.
This is not merely a battle between two states; it is a confrontation between two visions of world order. One rooted in hegemony and coercion. The other, in resistance, dignity, and sovereignty. And tonight, from the heart of Tehran, the voice of that resistance is being heard loud and clear.
Perception vs reality: What the Israel–Iran war actually reveals
Myth-making as strategy
By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | June 21, 2025
Since 13 June, “Operation Rising Lion” has dominated headlines, framed by a deluge of western media portraying Iran as days from building a nuclear bomb. In response, Israel unleashed waves of airstrikes on Iranian territory, targeting military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likened it to the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor – a strike of necessity to prevent annihilation.
But beneath the familiar tropes of “pre-emptive defense” lies an unmistakable imperial calculus. Over 200 Israeli aircraft participated in the opening barrage, with deep-penetration strikes and cyber warfare. Iranian air defense and radar installations were among the first to be hit. Mossad and allied forces used proxy agents to ignite internal sabotage, including drone and car bomb attacks in major cities.
This was not a “surgical strike” to stop a bomb. It was a declaration of war – a bid to decapitate the Islamic Republic.
Iran: Weak ‘regime’ or resilient state?
Western assessments insist Iran is tottering: its economy hollowed out by sanctions, its population seething, its leadership fractured. But these are fantasies. What has emerged since Israel’s 13 June assault is not a ‘regime’ in collapse, but a state adapting under fire – around which the majority of Iranians, irrespective of political affiliations, have united.
Contrary to the western narrative, the strikes that eliminated senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists barely dented Iran’s strategic posture. Within hours, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reaffirmed Artesh (conventional military) control over national defense, elevating new commanders and activating pre-planned strike protocols. This signaled a transfer of initiative from cautious IRGC veterans – many shaped by the traumas of the 1980–1988 war with Iraq – to a more hawkish generation, willing to directly strike Israel.
Iran’s retaliatory attacks on 13, 14, and 15 June – the third instalment of Operation True Promise – struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and three Israeli military bases. Online observers admired how quickly the Iranian military pivoted to war footing despite the assassination of high-ranking officers. One noted:
“I don’t think the American or Israeli military could have taken the losses of so many senior commanders and still struck back.”
Did Israel achieve air superiority?
Initial reports claimed Israeli dominance of Iranian airspace, based largely on footage of Israeli jets evading response and striking decoy targets. Yet after a 12-hour “silence,” Iranian air defense (AD) systems re-engaged with full force. The delay has been interpreted as either the effect of cyber warfare or a deliberate “rope-a-dope” strategy: feign weakness, draw in the enemy, make him over-confident, counterstrike.
Iran lost facilities it expected to lose, such as the outdated IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. Underground sites with IR-6 [SM1] centrifuges at Fordow were unaffected. Mobile and fixed AD units resumed operations by nightfall, and there are unconfirmed reports of Israeli aircraft downed in later attempts to breach Iranian skies.
Israeli media touted “air superiority,” but most confirmed strikes targeted decoys. As military analyst Mike Mihajlovic explained, “more than three-quarters of the videos circulating are actually hits on the decoys.”
The illusion of dominance, broadcast by Tel Aviv, is cracking.
War by terror
Unable to sustain large-scale aerial assaults, Israel shifted tactics. Standoff missile strikes from Iraqi airspace waned. Instead, Mossad and its internal assets launched FPV drone attacks, car bombings, and anti-tank guided missile strikes. Five car bombs exploded in Tehran on 15 June alone. Civilian sites – hospitals, dormitories, and residential buildings – were hit.
These are not military operations. They are acts of terror. Still, the west echoes Tel Aviv’s narrative. The BBC and others describe these incidents as “strikes,” implying aerial precision, rather than the car bombings they are. This deliberate linguistic obfuscation dehumanizes Iranians while sanitizing Israeli aggression. Yet, this has galvanized Iranians and united them.
National unity reforged
Much like the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion, Tel Aviv misread Iran’s internal contradictions as signs of collapse. Yet from 13 June onward, Iranians from across the political spectrum – including long-time dissidents – have rallied behind the state.
Political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam questioned:
“Which opposition figure has spoken and written as much as I have against this regime? But how can I join the enemy in this situation? Was it right for the MEK to join Saddam?”
Former political prisoner Ali Gholizadeh added, “Despite all my criticisms of the government, I stand fully behind the commander-in-chief of the Iranian Defense Forces and [Armed] Forces in defending the homeland.”
Even reformist voices, once critical of Iran’s nuclear policy, now demand a bomb. Journalist and editor Ali Nazary says, “Iran must acquire a nuclear bomb as soon as possible. Conducting a nuclear test is the biggest deterrent.”
On Iranian social media, images of civilians killed in Israeli attacks have gone viral. As of 15 June, 224 Iranians – 90 percent civilians – were reported killed, with over 1,200 injured.
Crumbling illusions
The occupation state claims it destroyed 120 missile launchers and 200 AD units. But Iranian units continue to fire in visible clusters – indicating low attrition and high confidence. Independent analysts mock Israeli claims as propaganda. Patarames, a known military observer, posted:
“IRGC missile crews still feel so confident and safe that their launchers are firing in clusters. So much for Israeli air superiority.”
In truth, Israeli AD systems are being degraded. Iranian missiles increasingly strike with little interception. The myth of omnipotent Israeli defense is unraveling.
Meanwhile, Tehran may be preparing its exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – according to a statement made by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei – and expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors. Parliament is fast-tracking bills. Crowds chant for a nuclear test. The west’s double standards on Israel’s arsenal and Tehran’s right to self-defense are fueling a shift in national strategy.
Global reactions: Hypocrisy laid bare
Washington’s rhetoric mirrors past duplicity. US President Donald Trump – who unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term – posted on X triumphantly:
“I gave Iran 60 days to make a deal. Israel attacked on day 61.”
G7 governments mumble about de-escalation, but offer no condemnation of Israeli aggression. The so-called “rules-based order” is silent as civilians die.
Iranians are not surprised. In 2001, they condemned the 11 September attacks and supported the US so-called War on Terror. Today, they watch the same west excuse terrorism against them. Trust is gone. Nationalism is surging.
Israel’s strategic gamble is backfiring. Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza and is targeting occupation soldiers in greater numbers. Hezbollah watches closely. Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces are coordinating with Tehran. If Iraq’s resistance factions activate, US forces could be drawn in.
Meanwhile, Tel Aviv’s own population is rattled. Social media posts from Israelis hiding in bunkers – “they’re turning us into Gaza” – reflect growing fear. The psychological war, waged by Iran, is winning.
Across the Global South, sympathy lies with Tehran. As Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone put it:
“Imagine being so evil and reviled that people love watching you get hit.”
A war of narratives and attrition
“Operation Rising Lion” was meant to decapitate Iran, destroy its nuclear program, and shatter its morale. Instead, it has united a fragmented polity, discredited western media, and exposed the hollowness of Israeli deterrence.
Iran’s leadership has hardened. Its people are defiant. Its enemies are scrambling to control the story.
This is not just a war of missiles. It is a war of narratives, sovereignty, and historical memory. The Axis of Resistance understands this. Tel Aviv, it seems, does not.
The Persian lion is not in a good mood.
US presses Iran nuclear threat narrative despite IAEA’s denial
RT | June 21, 2025
US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea stated at a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear bomb, despite IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi recently saying the agency found no evidence that Tehran is pursuing such a weapon. Analysts say Washington’s narrative resembles past efforts to justify regime change in the Middle East.
Last week, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, citing an imminent threat that Tehran would make a nuclear weapon. Iran, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful, retaliated with strikes on Israeli targets. The Israeli assault came days after the IAEA reported that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% – which is short of the 90% required for weapons.
However, since the strikes started, Grossi has claimed that his agency had no proof that Iran was actually trying to build a nuclear weapon, stressing that enriched uranium alone does not constitute a bomb. US intelligence agencies also maintain there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear arms. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump has claimed Iran was “very close” to acquiring a bomb and warned the US could intervene if it doesn’t agree to scrap its nuclear program.
Shea declared the US “continues to stand with Israel” and backs its campaign against “Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” She insisted that the US “can no longer ignore that Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” lacking only a decision from its supreme leader.
Some analysts say US rhetoric on Iran echoes President George W. Bush’s 2002 claims about Iraqi WMDs, which led to a US invasion despite no stockpiles being found. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told journalist Tucker Carlson this week that the entire operation against Iran “that came out of nowhere” is in fact an attempt by the US “deep state” to orchestrate regime change in Iran.
“We have a system that has its own national security policy… that is the fight we have to take on today,” Bannon stated, suggesting that Trump should not succumb to pressure from US war hawks and involve American military in the conflict. Tucker Carlson also said that while he supports Trump, he fears the consequences if he yields to pressure and joins the Israeli strikes. “I think we’re gonna see the end of the American empire,” he warned, criticizing Washington hawks for dragging the country into another war.
Journalist Steve Coll told NPR this week that using US intelligence to justify strikes mirrors the Iraq war narrative. He noted that while Israel calls its attacks preemptive, the objective remains vague.
“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has spoken of regime change and urged Iranians to rise up – just like George H.W. Bush did in 1991 with Iraq,” Coll said. “There’s no sign of a planned invasion, yet talk of toppling Iran’s government persists.”
Other observers, including former US President Bill Clinton, suggested Israel’s “undeclared war” on Iran may also be driven by another goal – Netanyahu’s desire to stay in power. Shea made a notable slip during her UN remarks, initially blaming Israel for “chaos and terror” in the Middle East before correcting herself to attribute it to Iran. RT’s Rick Sanchez and journalist Chay Bowes called her words a “Freudian slip” while discussing the situation in an episode of Sanchez Effect on Friday, with Sanchez adding, “She accidentally said the truth out loud.”
Iran-Israel War: China Refuses to React, and That’s the Strategy
GVS Deep Dive | June 17, 2025
As Israel and Iran edge closer to full-scale war, one major power is choosing silence over escalation: China. Despite being Iran’s largest oil customer and a self-declared counterbalance to U.S. dominance, Beijing has refused to take sides.
In this GVS Deep Dive, we examine:
🔹 China’s muted response to Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites
🔹 President Xi Jinping’s cautious diplomacy at the Central Asia Summit
🔹 Trump’s Truth Social posts warning 10 million Iranians to evacuate Tehran
🔹 The G7’s pro-Israel stance and growing Western military buildup in the Gulf
🔹 Why China sees wars like this as disruptions—not opportunities
🔹 And how China’s “smart diplomacy” and non-intervention policy are reshaping the rules of global power
While the West fuels chaos, China plays the long game. But the real question is: Can it afford to stay out if this war explodes into something bigger?
Najma tweets @MinhasNajma
Najma Minhas is Managing Editor, Global Village Space. She has worked with National Economic Research Associates (NERA) in New York, Lehman Brothers in London and Standard Chartered Bank in Pakistan. Before launching GVS, she worked as a consultant with World Bank, and USAID. Najma studied Economics at London School of Economics and International Relations at Columbia University, NewYork. She tweets at @MinhasNajma.
Israel received 14 weapon shipments from US, Germany since start of Iran war
The Cradle | June 20, 2025
Fourteen military cargo planes have arrived in Israel since the start of Tel Aviv’s brutal war against Iran, the Israeli Defense Ministry confirmed.
According to the ministry, the shipments are part of a broader flow of 800 military cargo planes that have arrived in Israel since the start of the genocidal war against Gaza in October 2023.
The ministry stated the shipment is “part of efforts to strengthen operational continuity and support all the IDF’s needs, both for achieving the goals of the war and for improving readiness and stockpiles.”
Most of these planes originated from the US, while the rest came from Germany.
The ministry confirmed that the latest shipments, which arrived on 19 June, are carrying equipment for Israel’s defense systems, which are being used to intercept Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile strikes against Israeli targets.
Military cargo planes are expected to continue arriving in the coming weeks, the Israeli Defense Ministry added. It said that these shipments are part of a joint effort involving the Defense Procurement Administration, procurement delegations in the US and Germany, the Israeli army’s Planning and Force Build-Up Directorate, and the Israeli Air Force.
The US has continued to funnel massive amounts of weapons and military equipment into Israel, and has deployed warships and fighter jets to the region to help the Israeli army in its attempts to shoot down Iranian missiles.
Middle East Eye reported on 14 June that before the Israeli attack on Iran last Friday, the US covertly delivered about 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel.
Since the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza began, Washington has delivered over 90,000 tons of armaments and military equipment.
“The US is a partner in the Israeli aggression against Iran, even if it does not participate publicly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 20 June.
Over the past few days, there has been widespread anticipation over a potential decision by US President Donald Trump to directly enter the war against Iran – particularly for joint strikes on the Fordow nuclear facility.
“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Trump said on Thursday.
Reports in Hebrew media have said Trump may be trying to deceive the Iranians, and could be planning to enter the war much sooner.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN said in Geneva on 18 June that Tehran will “respond seriously and strongly” if Washington directly enters the Israeli war.
The Islamic Republic had previously warned that all US bases in the region were within its reach and would be targeted if Washington launched an attack against the country.
Mohammad Marandi: Iran Prepares for War with America
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi and Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 19, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi discusses the US preparations to enter the war directly, and Iran’s preparations to fight the US. Trump will only accept Iran’s surrender, yet he does not appear to have the means to achieve this objective. What will happen if US strikes are ineffective and US military assets in the region are attacked? The only path forward now is reckless escalation.
Israel’s war on Iran is not about nuclear weapons
It is, and has always been, about regime change and breaking the Axis of Resistance
By Robert Inlakesh | RT | June 19, 2025
The claim that has been adopted by the United States, Israel and its European partners, that the attack on Iran was a “pre-emptive” attempt to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is demonstrably false. It holds about as much weight as the allegations against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003 and this war of aggression is just as illegal.
For the best part of four decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, every single attempt to strike a deal which would bring more monitoring and restrictions to Iran’s nuclear program has been systematically dismantled by Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in Western capitals.
In order to properly assess Israel’s attack on Iran, we have to establish the facts in this case. The Israeli leadership claim to have launched a pre-emptive strike, but have presented no evidence to support their allegations that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Simply stating this does not serve as proof, it is a claim, similar to how the US told the world Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Back in March, the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
On top of this, Iran was actively participating in indirect negotiations with the US to reach a new version of the 2015 Nuclear Deal. Donald Trump announced Washington would unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018, instead pursuing a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign at the behest of Israel.
Despite the claims of Netanyahu and Trump that Iran was violating the Nuclear Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report which stated Iran was in full compliance with the deal at the time.
If you trace back every conversation with neo-conservatives, Israeli war hawks and Washington-based think tanks, their opposition to the Obama-era Nuclear Deal always ends up spiraling into the issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional non-State actors.
Israeli officials frequently make claims about Iran producing a nuclear weapon in “years”, “months” or even “weeks,” this has become almost second nature. Yet their main issue has always been with Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who strive for the creation of a Palestinian State.
Proof of all this is simple. Israel, by itself, cannot destroy Iran’s vast nuclear program. It is not clear the US can destroy it either, even if it enters the war. An example of the US’ ineffectiveness at penetrating Iranian-style bunkers, built into mountainous ranges, as many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are, was demonstrated through the American failure to destroy missile storage bases in Yemen with its bunker-buster munitions, which were dropped from B-2 bombers.
Almost immediately after launching his war on Iran, Netanyahu sent out a message in English to the Iranian people, urging them to overthrow their government in an attempt to trigger civil unrest. The Israeli prime minister has since all but announced that regime change is his true intention, claiming that the operation “may lead” to regime change.
Israel’s own intelligence community and military elites have also expressed their view that their air force alone is not capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. So why then launch this war, if it is not possible to achieve the supposed reason it was “pre-emptively” launched?
There are two possible explanations:
The first is that the Israeli prime minister has launched this assault on Iran as a final showdown in his “seven front war,” with which he hopes to conclude the regional conflict through a deadly exchange that will ultimately inflict damage on both sides.
In this scenario, the desired outcome would be to conclude the war with the claim that Netanyahu has succeeded at destroying or has significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program. He would also throw in claims, like we already see him making, that huge numbers of Iranian missiles and drones were eliminated. This would also make the opening Israeli strike, which killed senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists, make sense. It would all be the perfect blend of propaganda to sell a victory narrative.
On the other hand, the assumption would be that Tehran would also claim victory. Then both sides are able to show the results to their people and tensions cool down for a while. If you are to read what the Washington-based think-tanks are saying about this, most notably The Heritage Foundation, they speak about the ability to contain the war.
The second explanation, which could be an added bonus that the Israelis and US are hoping could come as a result of their efforts, is that this is a full-scale regime change war that is designed to rope in the US.
Israel’s military prestige was greatly damaged in the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, and since that time there has been no victory achieved over any enemy. Hamas is still operating in Gaza and is said to have just as many fighters as when the war began, Hezbollah was dealt significant blows but is still very much alive, while Yemen’s Ansarallah has only increased its strength. This is an all round stunning defeat of the Israeli military and an embarrassment to the US.
As is well known, Iran is the regional power that backs all of what is called the Axis of Resistance. Without it, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas would be significantly degraded. Evidently, armed resistance to Israeli occupation will never end as long as occupied people exist and live under oppressive rule, but destroying Iran would be devastating for the regional alliance against Israel.
The big question however, is whether regime change is even possible. There is a serious question mark here and it seems much more likely that this will end up on a slippery slope to nuclear war instead.
What makes the Israeli-US claim that this war is somehow pre-emptive, for which there is no proof at all, all the more ridiculous of a notion, is that if anything, Iran may now actually rush to acquire a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If they can’t even trust the Israelis not to bomb them with US backing, while negotiations were supposed to be happening, then how can a deal ever be negotiated?
Even in the event that the US joins and deals a major blow to the Iranian nuclear program, it doesn’t mean that Iran will simply abandon the program altogether. Instead, Tehran could simply end up rebuilding and acquiring the bomb years later. Another outcome of this war could end up being Israeli regime change, which also appears as if it could now be on the table.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
