Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Former Israeli commander warns against war of attrition with Iran

Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2025

Israeli Reserve Major General Israel Ziv, former head of the Israeli occupation military’s Operations Division, warned on Wednesday that “Israel” has nearly exhausted its capacity to carry out direct strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities without US involvement.

He stressed that dismantling Iran’s nuclear program completely would require deeper, more effective measures that go beyond current military capabilities.

Writing for the Israeli Channel 12 website, Ziv cautioned that “Israel’s” current efforts, even if they achieve 60%, fall short of Iran’s determination to obtain a nuclear weapon at any cost. He added that if the situation remains unchanged, Tehran could produce a nuclear bomb in under a year.

Ziv outlined two strategic options available to both “Israel” and the United States. The first involves US diplomatic intervention to forge a stricter nuclear agreement, one that not only halts Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also addresses what he described as Tehran’s network of regional “arms.”

The second option, he warned, is a slow descent into a war of attrition that would carry severe consequences. “This descent cannot be compared to the limited threats posed by Yemeni forces,” he said, pointing to Iran’s more advanced and accurate capabilities.

According to Ziv, such a scenario could inflict long-term economic harm on “Israel” and compromise its internal security.

Ziv emphasized that Iran’s growing precision and boldness in recent operations pose a significantly elevated threat compared to traditional military adversaries. Prolonged attrition, he warned, would expose the Israeli occupation to sustained economic and strategic damage far beyond the scope of previous regional conflicts.

Israeli missile defense at risk of collapse in coming days: WaPo

On a related note, The Washington Post wrote that a long war of attrition between “Israel” and Iran may not be sustainable for Tel Aviv, highlighting mounting costs and dwindling interceptor supplies as critical vulnerabilities in “Israel’s” air defense network.

The report, published Monday, cites assessments from US and Israeli intelligence officials indicating that without urgent resupply or direct US military intervention, “Israel” may only be able to sustain its current level of missile defense for another 10 to 12 days.

“They will need to select what they want to intercept,” one source briefed on the matter said. “The system is already overwhelmed.”

The Post’s analysis aligns with recent warnings by military-focused open-source intelligence (OSINT) account @METT_Project, which projected that Iran’s sustained ballistic missile salvos could begin heavily breaching “Israel’s” multi-layered missile shield around Day 18 of the war. That projection, based on interceptor usage rates and known inventories, suggested that daily missile penetrations would increase significantly as the Israeli grid begins to ration munitions and prioritize critical zones.

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Poll: Americans Support Talks With Iran, Oppose Involvement in Israel’s War

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 17, 2025

A new poll shows that a majority of Americans want President Donald Trump to engage in negotiations with Iran and do not want Washington to support Tel Aviv’s offensive war against the Islamic Republic.

The survey, conducted by YouGov following the unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran, found 60% of Americans do not want Trump to enter the newest conflict in the Middle East, compared to just 16% of voters who want Washington to aid Tel Aviv’s military operation.

Even among Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, only 19% support entering the conflict. A majority of Republicans said they want Washington to stay out of the war.

While the US has not conducted direct strikes on Iran yet, Washington has provided substantial support to Tel Aviv’s war machine. The US has given Israel the arms and intelligence Tel Aviv needed to launch its bombing campaign.

Additionally, Israeli officials say Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worked together privately to convince Tehran that a deal was possible and no attack was imminent.

The YouGov poll also found that three in five Americans believe Trump should engage the Iranians in talks to end the war. Only 18% of voters are opposed to negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

However, talks between Washington and Tehran appear increasingly unlikely. On Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran must agree to an “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” to end the war.

Overall, Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the Middle East by a slight margin. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they approve of Trump’s Iran policy, against 44% who disapprove.

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Officials admit: US assets were used to intercept Iranian missiles

Al Mayadeen | June 17, 2025

US naval ships and ground-based air-defense systems have indeed intercepted Iranian missiles aimed at “Israel”, two US officials confirmed to NBC News.

They claimed, however, that the total number of these interceptions remains relatively low.

According to the Associated Press, American air defense systems and a Navy destroyer actively helped “shoot down incoming ballistic missiles” from Iran during a barrage aimed at “Israel” last Friday.

American defense assets, including Patriot and THAAD batteries, drove off several projectile waves, according to multiple US sources.

Additional US Navy destroyers, notably the USS Thomas Hudner, alongside the USS Arleigh Burke and USS The Sullivans, have been deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to reinforce interceptions of Iranian ballistic missiles.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Why the Israel-Iran war may not go according to Netanyahu’s plan

By Vitaly Ryumshin | Gazeta | June 17, 2025

There are no quiet days in the Middle East. Armed conflict is a constant presence, but this time the stakes are higher. Israel has found itself in direct confrontation not with a proxy or insurgent group, but with Iran – its principal geopolitical adversary and a likely future nuclear power.

Strictly speaking, the Israel-Iran war did not begin on June 13. The two countries exchanged direct strikes as far back as April 2024. For decades before that, they waged what is commonly known as a “shadow war,” primarily through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and support for regional proxies. But now, at Israel’s initiative, the conflict has escalated into open warfare.

Unlike the largely symbolic strikes of the past, this new phase targets strategic infrastructure, decision-making centers, and even cities. The tempo and scale of the exchanges mark a sharp escalation. With every new volley, the flywheel of war spins faster.

Still, this will not resemble the Ukrainian conflict. Iran and Israel do not share a border, so ground operations are unlikely. What we are witnessing is an air war – a remote conflict defined by long-range strikes and missile exchanges. The side that exhausts its military and political capital first will be the one that loses. Victory here is less about territory than stamina and strategic patience.

Who is likely to break first remains uncertain. Iran has the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East. Israel, however, enjoys unwavering US support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to believe that sustained pressure will destabilize what he calls the “ayatollah regime,” forcing it to collapse under external and internal strain.

But Netanyahu himself is politically vulnerable. His government has been marred by scandals and internal dissent. A prolonged and inconclusive conflict could easily threaten the survival of his cabinet.

The ideal outcome for Israel would be a swift, decisive campaign, similar to its past clashes with Hezbollah. In those instances, air superiority and rapid operations forced the enemy into submission. Statements from Israeli officials suggest that this remains the objective: a two-week operation designed to cripple Iran’s offensive capabilities.

However, there is one crucial difference: Iran is not Hezbollah. Tehran may have stumbled on June 13, but it possesses vastly superior organization and military resources. The Islamic Republic is several times larger than Israel in both territory and population, which means its endurance is much greater. Israel, by escalating so dramatically, may have left Iran with no option but to fight.

And there is mounting evidence that the plan for a quick Israeli victory is already faltering. If the war drags on, Netanyahu could face political blowback at home and criticism from abroad. In my view, that is the most likely scenario.

Netanyahu is not the only leader with something to lose. Donald Trump – who once promised to end endless wars and bring down gas prices – is already facing pushback within the MAGA movement. His vocal support for Israel has alienated parts of his base, who now accuse him of entangling the US in yet another foreign conflict.

So Trump faces the same dilemma as former President Joe Biden. Will he favor the interests of the pro-Israel lobby, which is deeply rooted in the Republican Party and his inner circle? Or the opinion of the electorate, capable of overturning his party in the 2026 elections? And if he chooses Israel, will he be ready for the consequences?”

Trump has promised to lower gas prices for Americans. He also claimed he would resolve the Middle East crisis. If Iran accelerates its nuclear program in response to Israeli aggression, that will spell the end of Trump’s Iran policy, which began with the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, the situation is being watched with interest. Rising oil prices would benefit Russia economically. More importantly, a major war between Israel and Iran could distract Washington from its commitments to Ukraine. Tehran is also a strategic partner of Russia, and it would be in Moscow’s interest for Iran to stay in the fight.

Yet questions remain about how much Russia can or will do. The Ukraine conflict is consuming much of the country’s military and industrial capacity. Moreover, the newly signed Strategic Partnership Treaty with Iran includes no obligation for direct military support. It simply states that neither party will aid an aggressor.

So for now, Russia’s best course may be to stay on the sidelines, offer diplomatic and rhetorical support, and hope that Iran does not overplay its hand. It is worth noting that Tehran recovered relatively quickly after the first strikes. Its ability to adapt to Israeli air tactics, bolster counterintelligence, and retaliate effectively will determine the next phase of the war.

We will likely see clearer developments within the two-week window Israel has set for itself. But if that deadline passes without a decisive result, it may be Netanyahu – not Tehran – who finds himself running out of options.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

MAGA’s Civil War: Who dares to take on the Israel lobby?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | June 17, 2025

Steve Bannon – the smart, stubborn, and irrepressible right/far-right public intellectual and once ally as well as chief strategist and bestie of US President Donald Trump – is back in the news. And in a way that speaks to much more than the ups and downs, and ins and outs, of US elite careers.

The hill he has chosen to fight on this time is resistance to the US waging another war in the Middle East in the service of Israel and its powerful lobby in America.

Bannon, make no mistake, is not taking a de facto stand against Israel because of its apartheid, genocide, and wars of aggression. He ought to, obviously, especially as a man flaunting his Christian belief. (From one sort-of-Roman-Catholic to another, Steve: Our Lord Jesus Christ really didn’t like the child killers, and I am pretty sure he would have found the lingerie-camouflage cross-dressers with machine guns rather off-putting, too.)

But then, if Bannon had principled moral objections here, he would not be Steve Bannon, a very conservative American, who will probably never shake off deeply ingrained mental habits of violence and racism.

But from Trump’s perspective – and that of the Israeli influence agents surrounding him – Bannon’s line of attack is actually more dangerous than a genuinely moral stance. Because Bannon is positioning American national interest against following Israel’s lead. By declaring that Israel pursues an ‘Israel First’ policy about as egotistically as Berlin’s ‘Germany First’ trip between 1933 and 1945, Bannon has dared to state the obvious: Israel’s interests are not identical with those of the US, and therefore, a genuine ‘America First’ policy must not obey Israel. Hence, stay out of the war against Iran. Or to be precise, get out of it.

And there Bannon is of course right and has the facts and logic on his side, which makes his challenge all the more threatening.

The background to Bannon’s sally, which as the Financial Times points out, signals a split among Trump’s domestically indispensable MAGA base, is the perfect mess Trump and his team have made over the attack on Iran. Despite their clumsy mixed messaging – really, contradictory lying and boasting – Israel’s unprovoked war of aggression against Iran can obviously only be waged because of massive American support.

In reality this is already a combined US-Israeli attack, and it makes no difference to this fact that Israel always wants even more, including – as Axios, a network with remarkably easy access to Israeli sources, has reported – open US help in attacking the key Iranian nuclear installations at Fordow.

Never mind, by the way, that deliberately striking a nuclear facility is as criminal as it gets. It constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions, as the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei has recently had to publicly school German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul about. The latter is clearly just as ignorant of his job’s basics as his legendarily inept predecessor Annalena Baerbock used to be.

Yet, as Bannon’s intervention shows, the key role the US plays in the assault on Iran has caused noteworthy ripple effects inside America and in particular inside the movement now known as MAGA. Originally the abbreviation was an extremely successful 2016 Trump campaign slogan – inspired by a forerunner used by Ronald Reagan in 1980 – meaning ‘Make America Great Again’.

But as a movement, MAGA has a much longer history. Its influences and ancestors include, for instance, nativism, isolationism, the original America First, and the more recent Tea Party. That’s why it is important to understand that MAGA overlaps with but is not identical with Trumpism, as often assumed. In reality, MAGA is part of an older, powerful tradition that Trump has tapped into with great success. But he is not guaranteed to always be in control of it, as the term ‘Trumpism’ may misleadingly imply.

Take for instance the perhaps greatest cleavage running through contemporary Trumpism 2.0: that between a right-wing populist orientation still aiming at, for want of better terms, ordinary Americans, and a techno-elitist wing busy with fantasies of openly establishing an AI-based rule of the richest. Things clearly remain volatile. For wasn’t it only yesterday that the would-be tech lords, represented by former “first buddy” Elon Musk, seemed to have defeated the populist tribunes of the Steve Bannon type? And yet, now Musk, the “man-child” is out (if not necessarily forever) and Bannon, the old battle axe, is making headlines again.

Warning of the “fog of war” – read that as code either for just ordinary information unreliability or for deliberate Israeli and Western disinformation – and “unintended consequences,” Bannon has been explicit: The US must not be “sucked into another major war on the Eurasian land mass, particularly the Middle East.” And yet, he added, America is already an “active combatant” by providing air defense to Israel.

For Bannon, at least in his current iteration, none of this is new. As he has also recently charged, the fundamental reason why American troops are in Iraq and thus in harm’s way is that the US government and its media, including both Republicans and Democrats, have “lied to us,” i.e., the American people, for decades. It has not been, as Bannon stressed, simply incompetence or mistakes, but the “bald-faced lies” and “spin of the neocons.”

That is of course a reference to the fact that the US and its Western accomplices started their 2003 unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq with a massive, Gleiwitz-level deception by deliberately trying to deceive the world about non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And that, according to Bannon, was along with the financial crisis of 2008 the original sin that triggered “this movement,” clearly here meaning what we now know as MAGA.

Bannon’s history may be a little off as far as facts are concerned. The roots of contemporary American right-wing populism include a tradition of isolationism, but they are certainly not identical with a revolt against the Iraq War, insane and criminal as the latter was.

But veracity and accuracy aren’t the point here. Instead what matters is how precisely Bannon is trying to rewrite history, namely by claiming opposition to neocon “forever wars,” specifically in the Middle East (transparent code for on behalf of Israel) as not only a core value of MAGA, but as a key element of its origin story.

As for Israel’s assault on Iran, Bannon was scathing. Rhetorically exploiting the silly pretense that Israel was “going it alone” when starting the attack – which Bannon is certainly intelligent and realistic enough to know is nonsense – he called on Israel to stick to doing just that. Yet instead, he scoffed, the “going-it-alone lasted six hours” and Israel is doing everything it can to drag Americans ever deeper into another massive war.

Importantly, Bannon is not alone. As he pointed out, conservative media heavyweight Tucker Carlson has made the same point. In fact, Carlson has been even more explicit. Using his X account with over 16 million followers to claim that the key divide of US politics is between “those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it – between warmongers and peacemakers,” Carlson started naming “the warmongers,” including “anyone who’s calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran,” such as “Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson.”

Carlson added that “at some point they will all have to answer for this, but you should know their names now.” And what names they are: Of the five, three, i.e., 60 percent – Levin, Perlmutter, and Adelson – are as most Americans would know or guess, Jewish. Murdoch and Hannity, in the minority, are not.

But all of the five are staunch Zionists, Hannity having been acknowledged by the Jerusalem Post as one of “10 Pro-Israeli Christians,” i.e. a Christian Zionist. And that was in October 2024, a full year into Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Mark Levin, an influential and extremely rightwing media personality, got his “Friends of Zion Museum ‘Defender Award’ for his steadfast support of the State of Israel and the Jewish people” in 2018.

Murdoch, the Western publishing oligarch with massive political influence, used a rambling – but who’s going to edit him, right? – 2009 Jerusalem Post article to admit he feels very flattered by frequently being misidentified as Jewish and to explain that the “free world” – old-timers’ speak for “rules-based value West” – must support Israel to the hilt.

According to Wikipedia, Ike Perlmutter is “an Israeli-American billionaire businessman and financier” – although ironically enough born in Mandate Palestine – who “through a variety of sometimes unorthodox business deals” has been “an influential investor in a number of corporations.” He also used to run Marvel Entertainment. Yes, that Marvel, the superhero story company now absorbed by Disney and perhaps the single most effective vehicle of contemporary US propaganda.

And multi-billionaire Miriam Adelson is of course not only the widow of Sheldon Adelson, the “casino mogul” and arch Zionist, but also a fanatical Zionist in her own right. Both Adelsons have been among Donald Trump’s most generous supporters. During his 2016 presidential campaign they were already among his “top donors.” In 2020 – when he lost – they made the single biggest individual contribution, a whopping $75 million. In 2024, Miriam Adelson dialed it up to eleven with $106 million. Only Elon Musk ($276 million) and rich heir extraordinaire Timothy Mellon ($150 million) gave even more.

And then there is the influential MAGA icon and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. In a long post on X, she fired a broadside against any further US involvement in wars abroad: “We are $36+ TRILLION in debt and have mountains of our own problems. We have giant planks sticking out of our own eyes while we complain about splinters in other’s eyes. Every country involved and all over the world can be happy, successful, and rich if we all work together and seek peace and prosperity.”

MTG, as she is often called, has also preemptively and rightly rejected any accusation of “antisemitism” and even of isolationism: “Taking this position is NOT antisemitic. It’s rational, sane, and loving toward all people. Taking this position of peace and prosperity for all is not isolationism, it leads to GREAT trade deals and GREAT economies that help ALL PEOPLE.”

Worst of all, from Trump’s and Israel’s perspective, she has in effect reminded her 4.8 million followers, as well as many others who will read about her post in the traditional media, of Trump’s own campaign promise to end and not start wars, because no more wars is “what many Americans voted for in 2024.”

Clearly, there are influential representatives of MAGA who are not only willing to openly challenge the perversely self-damaging hold that Washington allows Israel to have over its foreign policy, but are also beginning to be explicit about the fact that Israel’s lobby in the US – whether Jewish or not – is putting another country first, at enormous cost to Americans.

Unfortunately, there are reasons to fear that this right-wing criticism of ‘Israel First’ will not prevail. Trump may very well be so beholden to and afraid of the Israel lobby that he will make the single worst mistake of his life and get even deeper into the war against Iran.

But then the question is: What will happen next? There is a brave left-wing opposition to Israel in America – full disclosure: my sort of people – and there also is clear polling evidence that Israel’s grip on American society as a whole is finally slipping, especially among the young. Now add a right-wing, MAGA-based opposition and another great US fiasco in the Middle East backfiring on America’s home front. Israel may get its wish once again, but in the not-so-long run it should be very careful what it wishes for. And that, as grim as the news is, is a tiny speck of hope on a very dark horizon.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Trump Attacks Tucker Carlson Over Opposition to Iran War, Says He Decides What ‘America First’ Means

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 16, 2025

President Donald Trump is lashing out against popular conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson. The acrimony emanates from Carlson’s strong opposition to the White House’s indirect military support for Israel’s war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump declared he invented “America First” and he decides what it means while making his case for the potentially catastrophic war of aggression against Tehran.

On Monday, the president demeaned the influential pundit. Trump told reporters “I don’t know what [Carlson] is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.” In an interview with The Atlantic magazine this weekend, Trump was asked about Carlson’s comments against the war.

Trump responded “Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides [what it means]. For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don’t want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that’s not peace.”

“America First” is a political slogan which has seen a phenomenal resurgence in the wake of Trump’s first presidential campaign. It has been used by politicians in both major parties and dates back more than a century ago. It originated as a rallying cry for neutrality during the First World War and was used as part of President Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 reelection campaign. The following year, Wilson betrayed his supporters by ordering American forces into the war and imposing conscription. Since then, the antiwar, nationalist slogan has been deployed by non-interventionists, particularly on the right, exemplified best by Pat Buchanan.

Despite Trump’s continued insistence otherwise, his own intelligence agencies confirmed this year that there is no evidence Tehran is building a nuclear weapon nor has there been any suggestion that a political decision has been made to abrogate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fatwa against pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

On Friday, following Israel’s surprise bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, residential areas, and military sites, Carlson released a newsletter denouncing US involvement in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war. It begins by quoting from Trump’s first inaugural address, “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first.”

The newsletter then reads, “Now that [Netanyahu] and his war-hungry government have executed their long-awaited assault, [Trump] faces a legacy-altering decision: to support or not to support?

Carlson insists, “The United States should not at any level participate in a war with Iran. No funding, no American weapons, no troops on the ground. Regardless of what our “special ally” says, a fight with the Iranians has nothing to offer the United States. It is not in our national interest.”

The newsletter continues, with Carlson warning the consequences of supporting Israel will include future blowback terrorism against “the West” and “thousands of immediate American deaths, all in the name of a foreign agenda.” He concluded that a preferable option would be to “drop Israel” and “let them fight their own wars.” Carlson emphasized that because of the massive US military and financial aid to Tel Aviv, Trump is already “complicit in the act of war.”

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Diplomacy as deception: The West’s war on Iran was pre-planned

By Hamid Bahrami | MEMO | June 16, 2025

As bombs rain down on Iranian cities and missiles arc across the skies of the Middle East, we must speak plainly: this is not merely a war between Israel and Iran. It is a war against sovereignty, waged by an Israeli-Western coalition that has long sought to dismantle any state in the Global South that dares to chart an independent course.

Iran is not the aggressor in this conflict. It is defending itself, legally, historically, and strategically from a premeditated assault. The airstrikes Israel launched on 13 June were not acts of deterrence; they were the execution phase of a long-orchestrated operation aimed at crippling Iran’s infrastructure, destabilising its political system, and ultimately returning it to the kind of failed state once imposed on Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Each of those nations was de-developed under the guise of humanitarian intervention or nuclear containment. Iran is now in the crosshairs of the same playbook.

The deception runs deep. In the lead-up to the strikes, Western officials and Israeli intelligence deliberately projected calm signalling to Tehran and financial markets alike that diplomacy would continue as scheduled. Negotiations in Oman were a trap. While diplomats discussed terms, war rooms in Tel Aviv and Washington finalised strike packages. It was a bait-and-strike strategy, the diplomatic equivalent of ambush warfare.

Israel’s justification for the attacks, its supposed fear of Iranian nuclear capability, collapses under scrutiny. Nuclear talks had resumed. Iran remained a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And yet, Israel, a nuclear state that refuses to join the NPT, launched strikes that violated international law and killed dozens of civilians, including scientists and infrastructure workers.

Even more cynically, Tel Aviv has recycled a familiar accusation to justify civilian casualties: that Iran uses “human shields.” This baseless claim was used repeatedly in Gaza, where hospitals and apartment buildings were levelled on the pretence of targeting militants. Independent investigations have exposed the hollowness of these claims. Israel’s propaganda is less about evidence than about immunizing itself from consequence.

Despite years of Israeli terrorism, including the 13 June decapitation strikes that killed top Iranian commanders such as IRGC Chief Hossein Salami, Chief of General Staff Mohammad Bagheri, and missile-program leader Amir Ali Hajizadeh—Tehran has responded with calculated and disciplined force. Iran’s retaliatory strikes have been tightly focused on military bases, infrastructure, and command centers, avoiding civilian neighbourhoods and essential public services. In contrast, Israel has repeatedly struck residential buildings. Iran’s measured and purposeful response is not a weakness; it is a strategic posture rooted in moral strength and operational precision.

Some analysts have suggested that Israel expected internal dissent within Iran to paralyze the state’s response. This was a fatal miscalculation. While Iran is home to deep ideological divisions, foreign attack unites Iranians across the political spectrum. Even critics of the Islamic Republic now rally to its defence, because the threat is existential. In the face of foreign aggression, factionalism yields to nationalism.

The bigger threat now lies ahead. While headlines speak of “Israeli requests” for American support, the truth is that the United States has been involved from the outset. B-2 bombers were repositioned to Diego Garcia months ago. Joint U.S.–Israeli strike planning began under the pretext of nuclear containment. The deployment of bunker-busting bombs, diplomatic cover at the UN, intelligence sharing, and regional base access—all point to a war co-authored by Washington. They are simply waiting for Iran’s retaliatory capacity to be sufficiently degraded before launching a broader campaign.

Make no mistake: this is not a regional conflict. It is a US–Israel war, aided by Arab authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan. The West have lent support, whether through intelligence, logistics and approval. Iran is being isolated and encircled not because it poses a nuclear threat, but because it has refused to submit.

But Iran has deterrents of its own. The global economy cannot ignore the energy risks that come with escalating war in the Persian Gulf. Already, oil prices are surging. Tehran knows that its geopolitical power isn’t limited to missiles. Economic leverage, especially when energy prices are high, can shift political calculus in Washington, Brussels, and Riyadh.

There is also a deeper hypocrisy at play. Israel continues to possess a clandestine nuclear arsenal while Iran, still technically within the NPT framework, is sanctioned and threatened for the potential of one. This double standard is untenable. There are only two realistic futures in the region: either Israel is disarmed, or Iran becomes nuclear-armed. The era of unilateral vulnerability is over.

Iran now reassesses its participation in the NPT and reevaluates the assumption that international law provides any meaningful protection when facing nuclear apartheid. If the international community is serious about peace, it must begin not with limiting Iran’s defences, but with dismantling Israel’s offensive capabilities.

Finally, this war must be recognized for what it is: a strategic campaign to eliminate resistance in the Global South. From Baghdad to Tripoli, from Damascus to Tehran, the message has always been the same, those who seek autonomy must be brought to heel. Iran’s independence goal is not just political; it is existential. And every sovereign nation, every citizen with a memory of colonialism or foreign subjugation, should see themselves in its struggle.

What’s happening today is not merely a war on Iran. It is a war on independence, dignity, and the right of nations to choose their own futures.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zenith of Western asymmetric warfare in Iran and Ukraine

By Drago Bosnic | June 16, 2025

Achieving strategic advantage over your opponents has been at the center of every conflict in human history. In modern times, this is accomplished with long-range strike systems and weapons of mass destruction. However, countries that are at a disadvantage in that regard can opt for asymmetric methods to achieve similar or sometimes even more efficient results. Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, direct conflicts between global powers have been avoided, as all sides understand there would be no winners in such a war (or at least they did until recently).

Thus, the importance of intelligence services and other forms of non-kinetic warfare grew exponentially. The ability to infiltrate your opponent’s state apparatus is of the utmost importance, while maintaining plausible deniability adds to the strategic depth of defense, as the attacker can simply deny the involvement of its special services.

The political West has been at the forefront of such operations for years, targeting all of its opponents through asymmetric means, particularly through proxies. This is especially true for Russia, which still has major issues with the Kiev regime agents infiltrating the country and conducting operations of strategic importance. The latest attacks on Russian strategic aviation are a testament to that. It should be noted that Moscow’s services have been quite successful in detecting Western agents as they have decades of experience in doing so.

However, Ukrainian operatives are a different story. Namely, the vast majority of Ukrainians speak fluent Russian and can easily blend in virtually anywhere in the country. They can also obtain Russian citizenship, meaning they could be largely under the radar for years. It’s exceedingly difficult to uncover such plots, particularly if they’re being conducted over the course of several years.

This also holds true for other countries of the multipolar world, including Iran, which has been heavily infiltrated by foreign agents, as evidenced by the sheer number of assassinations and so-called decapitation strikes on top Iranian commanders. It’s still unclear how exactly Israel managed to create such a large network of its agents within Iran, but their operations have had a strategic impact on the ongoing conflict.

The Mossad had very close ties with the SAVAK, former Iranian secret police and intelligence service during the Shah era, so it’s quite possible that the Israelis maintained contacts with their Iranian associates even after 1979. They could’ve easily played the role of sleeper agents who were activated by Israel at the moment of the strike. In addition, new operatives could’ve infiltrated Iran from neighboring countries, particularly Azerbaijan which maintains a close partnership with Israel.

Apart from being a major client for the Israeli Military Industrial Complex (MIC), which was instrumental in Baku’s takeover of native Armenian lands in Artsakh (better known as Nagorno-Karabakh), Azerbaijan also has irredentist ambitions toward northwestern Iran, where a homonymous area has more ethnic Azeris than the South Caucasus country itself. The regime in Baku certainly sees the ongoing events as a perfect opportunity to achieve its goals, which could be a major factor in Israeli operations.

Numerous observers have also pointed out the many similarities between the actions of the Kiev regime and Israel, as both have been conducting these asymmetric hybrid attacks deep within Russia and Iran, respectively. The drones that were used in attacks on Moscow’s long-range aviation and Iranian air defenses operate in a virtually identical manner, targeting strategic assets from within.

There are two possibilities in this case. Either the Mossad is involved in training the SBU and/or GUR, or they’re all connected into a much larger network run from Washington DC and London. The latter is much likelier, as both SBU and GUR have strong ties with the CIA and MI6, respectively. In other words, the US-led political West is conducting these operations in an attempt to secure a strategic advantage over its rivals.

This is also done through so-called “international” organizations such as the UN, OSCE, IAEA, etc. For instance, after the start of the special military operation (SMO), Russian military intelligence uncovered that OSCE, which is supposed to be a neutral organization monitoring the ceasefire, was actually helping the Kiev regime target Russian forces by giving the former access to its cameras along the frontline. Moscow promptly ordered OSCE personnel to leave after this.

Some sources are reporting that the IAEA also did something similar in Iran, by giving Israel information on the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists. If true, this could explain how the Mossad was so effective in eliminating them virtually on the first day of the attack. In addition to scientists, a large number of high-ranking Iranian military officers were eliminated within the country. This is perfectly in line with the political West’s doctrine of so-called “decapitation” attacks that aim to paralyze the chain of command in a targeted country.

Many of the most prominent warmongers in Washington DC have been calling for such strikes, even against opponents like Russia. And indeed, in the last several years, there have been a number of assassination attempts against top-ranking Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin himself. Once again, this was done through proxies such as the Neo-Nazi junta.

In some cases, this could’ve also worked, as evidenced by disturbing revelations regarding the mysterious death of the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian. The aftermath of Raisi’s death has been disastrous for Iran and its Axis of Resistance. By the end of last year, Syria fell to NATO’s terrorist proxies, while Hezbollah’s long-time leader Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated, followed by a number of high-ranking Iranian and pro-Iranian figures at around a similar time.

The strategic consequences of these events cannot be overstated, meaning that the idea they were purely accidental is extremely unlikely, to put it mildly. By the time Israel attacked Iran, the geopolitical situation in the Middle East shifted dramatically in Israel’s favor. This made launching strategic attacks much easier, as it didn’t have to worry about Syrian air defenses.

Mossad operatives on the ground used not only drones, but also missiles (such as the “Spike NLOS”). Worse yet, it seems they didn’t even have to stay in the country to launch these strikes, as both drones and missiles were controlled remotely, which is yet another indicator of the same modus operandi used by the Kiev regime. Military sources indicate that Israel also used portable electronic warfare (EW) systems to disrupt Iranian air defenses, making it far easier for its missiles to reach targets within Iran.

As previously mentioned, this sort of deep infiltration also enabled Israel to assassinate top-ranking personnel. Reportedly, this includes General Mohammad Bagheri, the Chief of the Iranian General Staff; Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and David Sheikhian, commanding officer of the IRGC’s air defenses. Many other senior military leaders were also killed.

Although Israeli strikes were far more efficient than those launched by the Kiev regime, it’s impossible not to draw parallels with high-profile assassinations of numerous Russian public and military figures, including Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the late commander of Russian NBC Protection Troops, who was killed in a terrorist attack back in mid-December. It should be noted that he was investigating US involvement in biological warfare in NATO-occupied Ukraine and was in no way connected to military operations against the Neo-Nazi junta forces.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that his assassination was certainly not conducted by the SBU of their own volition. Namely, such operations require significant resources that would be reserved for important operations to undermine the Russian military. The only thing that was undermined is the investigation into the Pentagon’s massive biowarfare program.

The Kiev regime conducted many similar attacks on Russian scientists, including Daniil Mikheev, a coordinator of new unmanned systems for the Ministry of Defense; Konstantin Ogarkov, an employee of a defense research institute in Voronezh; Igor Kolesnikov, an engineer at a design bureau in the Tula oblast (region); Sergei Potapov, a cybersecurity defense specialist from Nizhny Novgorod; Valery Smirnov, one of the leading experts in programs for radio-electronic protection of strategic facilities.

In January 2024, a car with officers from the electronic intelligence headquarters in the Bryansk oblast was blown up, while on the night of April 17-18, Evgeny Rytnikov, the head of the design bureau of the Bryansk Electromechanical Plant, the developer of the now legendary “Krasukha” EW systems, was also killed. Such assassinations are a testament to the terrorist nature of the Neo-Nazi junta, as all these people were non-combatants.

Among the prominent Iranian scientists killed by Mossad were Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, Dr. Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, Dr. Abdolhamid Minuchehr, Dr. Amir Hosein Fekhi and Dr. Fereydoun Abbasi. Once again, it’s impossible not to draw parallels, despite the fact that Israeli strikes were far more strategically consequential.

Still, the main conclusion is that the political West continues to use its proxies to wage war on several countries simultaneously, while also maintaining plausible deniability.

The only way to counter such attacks is for the targeted countries to enforce tighter control over communications, as well as enlarge their intelligence apparatus. While these measures could be seen as “totalitarian” (and will no doubt be presented as such by the mainstream propaganda machine), there’s simply no other way to blunt the blade of the political West’s modern asymmetric hybrid warfare.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What if Iran Closes the Hormuz Strait?

Sputnik – 16.06.2025

With the Israel-Iranian conflict in full swing, oil producers and oil consumers alike are wondering: could Iran resort to shutting down maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and if so, how it might affect oil prices?

Oil could hit $130 per barrel, or even $300, if Iran does close the strait, warns Dr. Tilak Doshi from the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center.

It is very likely that such high prices would not be “favored by the US administration, and they will try to arrive at a resolution of the war as soon as possible,” he notes.

“Historically, in 2008, oil prices briefly reached $147 per barrel without any major geopolitical conflict, driven solely by financial speculation and tight supply-demand dynamics,” muses energy economist Dr. Kazi Sohag.

“During the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, triggered by the Yom Kippur War, oil prices increased by 300%, demonstrating how quickly markets can react to political shocks,” he adds.

Even without the strait’s closure, targeting Iran’s oil export and refining facilities could push prices to $80 or even $90, predicts Marc Ayoub, energy policy researcher.

“If things continue like they are currently, we would stay on the same norm, and we might reach a level or a ceiling of $80 per barrel maximum,” he elaborates.

“And also, if Israeli Kareesh or Leviathan are targeted as well, we might see increases for up to $5, between $5 and $10. That means we might reach… $90 or something.”

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

‘Israel’, US face risks in targeting Iran’s underground nuclear sites

Al Mayadeen  | June 16, 2025

Recent Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-related facilities have revived questions about whether it is even possible to destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure.

A March report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) suggests that any attempt to do so would be highly difficult, dangerous, and ultimately uncertain in its outcome.

According to the report, taking out Iran’s underground enrichment sites, including Natanz and Fordow, would require extensive firepower, specialized weaponry, and direct US military support. Even then, success would not be guaranteed.

The study warns that such a mission should be seen as an “option of last resort,” given the risks of full-scale regional escalation and the technical challenges involved.

The Natanz site, one of Iran’s main uranium enrichment facilities, was among the targets hit in the latest Israeli strikes. However, the degree of damage remains unknown, particularly since its most sensitive infrastructure lies underground.

Estimates cited in the RUSI report suggest that parts of the Natanz facility are buried around 8 meters (26 feet) below ground. While “Israel” is believed to possess munitions that can penetrate up to 6 meters, the margin may be insufficient, especially if the underground structure is reinforced with layers of hardened concrete or rock.

Fordow facility likely out of reach for both US and ‘Israel’

Iran’s second major enrichment facility, the Fordow plant, is believed to be buried at a much greater depth, possibly between 80 and 90 meters (262 to 295 feet) below the surface. According to the RUSI report, this would place it beyond the reach of even the US military’s most powerful bunker-buster bomb, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which can penetrate around 60 meters.

Adding to the challenge, the GBU-57 can only be deployed by the US Air Force’s B-2 stealth bombers, an asset the Israeli regime does not possess, even if the US were to supply the weapon itself.

Beyond depth, Iran has employed architectural and engineering methods to make its nuclear facilities even more resilient to aerial bombardment. The RUSI report notes that facilities with narrow access shafts, multiple blast doors, and separate entry/exit tunnels are far more difficult to destroy than those with a single, large chamber or shaft.

This layered design could significantly reduce the likelihood of success, even if multiple precision-guided munitions were deployed in succession.

As tensions escalate, the report offers a clear warning: even a coordinated US-“Israel” effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities may fall short of its objective, while simultaneously risking a wider war.

Given the limitations of current munitions, the depth and complexity of Iran’s enrichment sites, and the potential for catastrophic fallout, the RUSI study concludes that targeting these facilities is a last-resort option, not a tactical shortcut.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Italy and Germany on the War Front

By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | June 16, 2025

Italy and Germany are at war not only against Russia in support of Ukraine, but also against Iran in support of Israel. This is demonstrated by documented facts. These facts are ignored by the political-media mainstream.

The Italian B350ER aircraft – a new-generation aircraft for espionage, target recognition and communication operations – operates in the Black Sea together with similar US aircraft to spy on Russian territory and assist Ukrainian forces to strike Russian targets with unmanned drones and explosive vessels. Italy is thus not only supplying weapons to Kiyv but is actively participating in this and other ways in the NATO war against Russia. Even more direct is Germany’s participation in the war: it has permanently stationed a 5,000-strong Bundeswehr brigade in Lithuania, equipped with 2,000 tanks and other military vehicles.

“With this combat-ready brigade,” states German Defence Minister Pistorius, “we are taking on a leadership responsibility within the Alliance here on NATO’s Eastern Flank”.

Thus, NATO has deployed its forces on the borders with Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia’s ally Belarus. At the same time, two other NATO countries — the United Kingdom and Canada — are deploying their ++forces in Estonia and Latvia, which also border Russia. These forces are like a candle lit in a powder keg. According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, if NATO forces suffer losses in a clash with Russian forces on the border, all other NATO countries would have to intervene on their side against Russia. The Trump Administration’s role is becoming increasingly equivocal, as it states that it wants to agree with Russia on a diplomatic solution to end the war. Yet, it is helping Ukraine to continue the war against Russia, either directly through military operations such as those in the Black Sea, or indirectly through NATO, which, under US command, is bringing its military forces ever closer to Russia.

As part of the same strategy, Germany and Italy play a significant role in supporting Israel in the Middle East. After the USA, Germany is the second-largest supplier of weapons to Israel. So far, Israel has received six Dolphin-class submarines from Germany, manufactured by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. These submarines have been modified to launch nuclear attack missiles. According to an agreement in 2022, Germany will supply Israel with three more Drakon-class submarines, which are larger than the previous models and can launch even more powerful nuclear missiles. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons, and, as it has not joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not subject to any control. Iran, having joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has civil nuclear facilities that are subject to UN Atomic Energy Agency controls.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US aerial tankers headed to Middle East – media

RT | June 16, 2025

The US has reportedly deployed more than 30 aerial refueling tankers across the Atlantic toward the Middle East, Military Watch Magazine reported on Monday. The outlet has described the buildup as “unprecedented,” claiming it could suggest broader US involvement in the ongoing Israeli-Iranian war.

West Jerusalem and Tehran have entered the fourth day of open hostilities. Last Thursday, Israeli forces launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, killing senior military officials and scientists and prompting retaliatory missile barrages on Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa.

The US has expressed support for the Israeli strikes, with President Donald Trump calling them “excellent.” He has also warned that Washington could become directly involved in the conflict if American interests are threatened but has yet to announce any plans to involve US forces.

However, according to flight tracking data, the US has already started deploying KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers to the Middle East. Military Watch Magazine has suggested that the aircraft may be intended to support Israeli Air Force operations or refuel US fighters and bombers if Washington expands its role in the conflict.

The report also claims that tankers from other Western countries have participated in Israeli aerial refueling efforts, while the US is believed to have provided intelligence, satellite targeting data, and missile defense support.

On Sunday, Axios reported that Israeli officials had asked the US to directly take part in the military operation, specifically requesting assistance in striking Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility. However, US officials cited by the outlet said the request was declined, with one stating that the Trump administration is not considering any such involvement.

Nevertheless, Tehran has claimed that Washington’s support for West Jerusalem has made the US complicit in Israel’s aggression against Iran. Sources within the Iranian military have also reportedly indicated that Tehran’s response to Israeli strikes would “spread to all areas occupied by this [Israeli] regime and related US bases in the region in the coming days.”

In response, Trump has warned that any Iranian attack on US forces would trigger a military response, writing on his Truth Social platform that “if we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.” He also insisted that the US “had nothing to do with the attack on Iran” and called on Tehran to return to negotiations.

June 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment