IRAN GOT NOTHING FROM the MoU – Nima Alkhorshid
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026
A shorter declaration masks deeper tensions, as Washington pushes to reshape NATO’s role from Europe to West Asia and Asia-Pacific.
By Mehmet Ali Guller | The Cradle | July 11, 2026
The six-point final declaration of the NATO Ankara Summit is among the shortest in recent years, similar to last year’s five-point declaration from The Hague. In contrast, the 2021 Brussels Summit declaration contained 79 points, Madrid in 2022 had 22, Vilnius in 2023 included 90, and Washington in 2024 featured 38.
The sharp reduction reflects ongoing tensions between the US and Europe. The declaration is brief because areas of agreement remain limited. The debate over NATO as a “paper tiger” has not been resolved, only set aside.
In the declaration, this issue is temporarily addressed through the slogan “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”
Ankara Declaration targets Russia and Iran
The first article of the six-point Ankara declaration reaffirms commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, while the final article offers thanks to the host country.
The remaining four articles center on Russia, outline a $70 billion support package for Ukraine, expand defense spending, reference $50 billion in arms deals, and briefly touch on Iran.
The Donroe Doctrine and NATO 3.0
Washington is seeking to adapt NATO to what it frames as a new strategic phase, described here as NATO 3.0. The so-called Donroe Doctrine centers on consolidating dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shifting more responsibility onto allies in Europe and elsewhere, and encircling China in the Asia-Pacific through partnerships.
In practice, this takes three forms:
The political economy of NATO 3.0
Washington views militarization as the lever for the transformation of NATO 3.0. It has two key objectives: raising NATO members’ defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and building a new arms production chain. The first step was initiated in The Hague last year, and the second advanced in Ankara.
Pushing defense spending to 5 percent would generate a vast financial pool within a few years. Including NATO partners such as Japan would further expand the scale, creating a market that draws broad interest. The US aims to distribute this pool in a way that sustains the NATO 3.0 framework.
Alongside this sits the effort to construct a new arms supply chain. The approach is to retain control over core components while distributing subcomponent production across allies, linking them to one another and ultimately to Washington.
The $50 billion arms deals referenced in the declaration mark an initial step. The $10 billion NATO–South Korea agreement, which grants Seoul access to NATO’s joint defense procurement market, fits within this model.
A new military-industrial economy
For the Erdogan government, securing a share of expanding defense spending has become a priority. Ankara sees this as an opening for its defense sector, particularly through the state firm ASELSAN and the private company BAYKAR.
The Defense Industry Forum, long held as a side event at NATO summits, was included in the official program in Ankara for the first time, reflecting that shift.
Countries seeking a share of this expanding market and Washington’s effort to allocate that share in line with its strategy have converged.
The idea of a NATO Defense Bank is also on the agenda. Nine countries laid its groundwork during the Ankara summit. If realized, it would tie a military-industrial model more closely to financial capital.
Turkiye 3.0: NATO’s central frontline state
For Turkiye, NATO 3.0 also signals a new phase.
NATO 1.0 covers the period from the alliance’s founding to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that time, Turkiye was integrated into US strategy, diluting its founding emphasis on independence and anti-imperialism, eroding aspects of its secular character through the Green Belt project, and absorbing its human capital within anti-communist programs.
NATO 2.0 spans the period from 1991 to 2026. In these years, NATO expanded toward Russia, dismantled Yugoslavia, and intervened across West Asia. Turkiye’s role was again shaped within US strategy, this time through “moderate Islamism.”
NATO 3.0 is defined by Europe taking on security responsibility against Russia, the pursuit of a West Asian order under Israeli dominance, and a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific.
Within this framework, Turkiye is positioned as a security enforcer for Europe, encouraged to normalize relations with Tel Aviv to secure a place in the regional order, and drawn into efforts aimed at countering Iran.
In effect, Turkiye is being placed at the center of NATO’s frontline. The naval command under construction in the Bosphorus is directed toward Russia, while the new NATO Corps headquarters in Adana is oriented toward West Asia and Iran.
Washington’s ‘Asian NATO’ objective
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte effectively represents US leadership within the alliance. His statements reflect Washington’s position rather than Europe’s.
His remarks before and during the summit pointed to a longer-term objective. Rutte argued that Russia was working closely with North Korea, China and Iran, adding that NATO “cannot be naive” and had to remain united.
At its core, NATO 3.0 reflects an effort to use the alliance first against Beijing’s partners—Russia and Iran—and, over time, against China itself. The push to reorient NATO toward Asia follows from this.
For the past four years, leaders of the IP4 countries have been invited to NATO summits. In Ankara, discussions with these states focused on expanding cooperation in defense industries and advanced technologies.
Washington is pressing these partners toward closer military alignment, at times resembling a sub-alliance—an “Asian NATO.” Proposals to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo—though contested, notably by France—form part of this effort.
Washington, however, has continued to push for a broader NATO role in Asia. As Rutte put it, “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are closely interconnected,” reinforcing efforts to extend the alliance’s focus beyond its original geographic remit.
Expectations from NATO 3.0
Following the Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 is expected to serve different priorities:
For countries across the Global South, NATO is widely viewed as an outdated military alliance whose role has run its course.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026
Press TV – July 10, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s plan for post-genocide Gaza, which called for a 20,000-strong multinational “peacekeeping” force to secure the besieged territory, is now struggling to recruit even an initial group of up to 20 troops, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
The exclusive report reveals that the security framework meant to underpin Washington’s vision for Gaza after the genocide remains far from realization. The proposed initial deployment has faced repeated delays and sharply diminishing international support.
The original proposal envisioned a large multinational force of around 20,000 personnel. However, regional instability, political disagreements among potential contributors, and ongoing military tensions have drastically scaled back the project.
Daniel Shapiro, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, told the newspaper that the recent joint US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran has not only delayed decisions on the force but has also eroded many countries’ willingness to participate.
Indonesia, once expected to be one of the largest contributors, suspended its involvement in March, citing the worsening regional security situation. Indonesian officials have confirmed that the country’s participation remains on hold.
According to the report, only Morocco, Albania, Kosovo, and Kazakhstan are currently expected to make formal commitments.
The first Moroccan contingent, originally scheduled to deploy in June, has been delayed and is now expected to arrive in the coming months. Instead of entering Gaza immediately, these troops will first be stationed at a newly built logistics hub in Israeli-occupied territory near the Kerem Shalom crossing.
This dramatic downsizing highlights the mounting political, security, and diplomatic obstacles facing Washington’s so-called “day after” strategy for the blockaded Palestinian territory. The difficulties confronting the proposed international security force (ISF) underscore the broader failures of the Trump administration’s Gaza plan.
The ISF was intended as a central pillar of the US-backed post-genocide framework, which envisioned a phased political transition in Gaza. Under the plan, Israeli occupation forces would withdraw, and the international force would take over security responsibilities while a US-led Board of Peace oversaw reconstruction and political implementation.
Meanwhile, the Hamas resistance movement announced this week that it would dissolve the emergency committee administering Gaza but declined to disarm its military wing. Palestinian resistance groups have made clear that surrender is not an option in the face of the US-led effort to reshape Gaza’s future.
Reconstruction has barely begun across most of Gaza, with only a fraction of the estimated $17 billion in pledged funds actually secured. Wealthy donors have largely refused to finance projects in areas still under Israeli control, viewing such efforts as legitimizing the occupation.
The Israeli genocide has already killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, wounded over 171,000, and destroyed around 90 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, according to Gaza authorities.
By Harrison Berger | The American Conservative | July 5, 2026
Amid record-high public hostility toward Israel and the wars taxpayers are financing on its behalf, the Israel lobby has mobilized to pass a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 which includes language designed to sustain the years long wealth transfer from Americans to Israelis and cement that relationship in ways that would be less transparent and more difficult to challenge through democratic processes.
At the same time, a coalition led by outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has launched a counteroffensive to block a separate track of funding for Israel’s wars, targeting the transfer of $3.3 billion to Israel embedded within the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, which is also up for vote this summer.
The first bill—the NDAA—was highlighted by The American Conservative earlier this month. It includes language within its Section 224 (since renumbered Section 219 in the House) that would direct the Pentagon to identify Israeli-origin technologies “for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record” and to build “United States-based co-production or manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry.” Section 219, if enacted, “would be unprecedented,” Annelle Sheline of the Quincy Institute told TAC. “No other foreign country has an executive agent in the Pentagon to integrate our military industrial complex with theirs.”
Along with merging Israeli and American weapons technology and data, Section 219 would shift funding for Israeli weaponry from Congress to the Pentagon’s murky procurement system.
“This so clearly seems to be an attempt to shield money from cratering public opinion,” Sheline said. She noted that “Americans do not want to fund a country engaged in genocide and which led us into the Iran War,” adding that, rather than representing public opinion and cutting off Israel’s funding, Congress has moved to conceal it.
Such a merger carries inherent national security risks. The presence of foreign components in U.S. systems raises the threat those systems’ integrity will be compromised, a danger heightened in this case by Israel’s demonstrated capability and willingness to weaponize supply chains, as exhibited in their 2024 attack that involved the detonation of thousands of pagers which had been engineered into remote-controlled bombs. Joe Kent, the former director of the National Center for Counterterrorism, argues similarly that “the dangers of allowing any other nation to access our sensitive military technologies are obvious, including the fact that back doors and spyware can be installed that will most certainly be used by the Israelis to influence U.S. policy.”
But Section 219 of the NDAA would hinder American national security in much more immediate ways, principally by reducing the leverage Washington currently maintains to influence Israeli behavior in the region. “At present,” Sheline explains, “Israel is dependent on U.S. weapons and components, particularly their air force.” That U.S. support has enabled the Israelis to perpetrate a genocide in Gaza, ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, and launch two wars against Iran, with Israel’s defense minister recently threatening a third.
“The U.S. could at present use leverage to change that Israeli behavior,” Sheline says. But by merging U.S. and Israeli weapons development, “this legislation would reverse it so that the [Israelis] could do that to us.”
Despite the various threats to American national security posed by the provision, section 219 this week moved closer to its expected final passage, with the House Rules Committee on Monday rejecting a bipartisan amendment introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) that would have stripped the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” from the NDAA.
Massie’s efforts to stop a separate track for Israel funding attached to the State Department’s spending bill may be more successful. His other amendment—which seeks to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual funding for Israel tied to a 10-year, $38 billion MoU—has reportedly provoked panic among House Democrats, who face pressure from constituents with record-low views of Israel.
Punchbowl News reported that House Democrats “expressed alarm” in a closed meeting and were “begging for leadership guidance” on how to vote while Axios reported on Wednesday that Democrats “fear intense backlash from their base if they oppose” Massie’s amendment to halt Israel funding. Democrats who continue to support wealth transfers from the American tax base to Israelis are aware that doing so comes with the heightened risk of being unseated for it, with the recent ouster of Israel First Democrats Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) serving as a warning to any Democrats who continue to defy the will of the Democratic Party base.
The Massie amendment to cut off funds for Israeli offensive weaponry “may end up being the last time these sorts of votes are meaningful,” says Sheline. “If we proceed with defense industrial integration (Section 219), congress won’t be able to vote on it again.”
Harrison Berger is a correspondent at The American Conservative. He has contributed to Drop Site News, The Nation, and Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He studied Political Science and Russian Studies at Union College (NY).

Press TV – July 9, 2026
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has slammed Europe’s participation in the unprovoked US-Israeli war on Iran, asserting that the Europeans “cannot evade responsibility” in their aggressive pursuit.
Baghaei said in a post on the social media platform X on Thursday that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s repeated admissions regarding the participation of European countries in the US-Israeli military aggression against Iran confirm once again that Europe has not been neutral in this war.
He said those parties in Europe who provide land, airspace, military bases, and infrastructure for the US-Israeli military aggression cannot evade responsibility for their complicity or the resulting consequences.
The spokesman also criticized Rutte for his nonstop “self-congratulation for serving an illegal war”.
He rebuked the NATO chief over his revolting flattery of US President Donald Trump.
Baghaei said Rutte’s “sycophancy” does not “reflect strength, it exposes the servile mindset of a fawning courtier who fancies that flattery can erase a king’s contempt.”
He added that Rutte’s flattery of Trump will never “restore the flatterer’s own self-respect and personal integrity.”
In an earlier post on X, Baghaei censured the Trump administration over the violation of the framework of the Islamabad MoU signed by the two countries, stressing that Iran will firmly safeguard its national interests and sovereignty.
Early Thursday, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Aerospace Force struck key infrastructure at four American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain in the first phase of its response against the United States’ most recent violations of Iranian territory.
The Corps identified the targeted outposts as Arifjan and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait and Juffair and Sheikh Isa in Bahrain, and noting that the facilities were hit using missiles and drones.
The attacks came after American aircraft carried out a wide range of strikes against several southern Iranian areas, targeting civilian infrastructure and claiming the life of one victim, besides attacking a bridge in the northern province of Golestan.
Also on Wednesday, the IRGC had launched a joint missile and drone operation targeting 85 US military installations at Port Salman, home to the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, in response to similar US strikes.
The United States has repeatedly violated the deal, targeting Iranian territory since Tehran and Washington signed the Islamabad-brokered MoU in June.
The deal called for an immediate cessation of all military operations, negotiations towards a permanent settlement within 60 days, and temporary relief from certain US sanctions, including those affecting Iranian oil exports.
Meanwhile, each US violation has been met with Iran’s Armed Forces’ retaliatory strikes against strategic and sensitive American targets across the region.
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 9, 2026
The drama over the Strait of Hormuz escalated on Wednesday with Donald Trump declaring the MoU with Iran is dead and vowed more attacks on Iran. Trump continues to insist that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz, but the fact is that Iran is acting within its rights under the terms spelled out in paragraph five of the MoU (which I discussed in my previous post). The US attack on Iranian outposts along the shore of the Persian Gulf on Tuesday was a set up — i.e., the US coordinated with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to have their ships defy the Iranian protocol to register the voyage with the IRGC, which precipitated the Iranian attack on those vessels. While falsely claiming this was a violation of the MoU, Donald Trump hit Iran with bombs starting late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning Iranian time.
Unlike the previous incidents on June 25 and June 26, where Iran hit non-compliant ships and the US did a one-off airstrike on Iranian positions on the shore of the Strait of Hormuz following each incident, Trump launched a new series of attacks on Iran on July 8 (Wednesday) even though Iran had not attacked another ship. Why did Trump do this? Was it retaliation for some anti-ship missiles fired at the US Carrier Strike Group operating 200 miles off the coast of Iran? That’s my hypothesis… One or more missiles hit one or more US vessels, causing some damage that has not been reported publicly.
Trump’s Wednesday strikes doubled the size of the ones he ordered on Tuesday. Iran, in response, launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq al Salti airbase in Jordan. I have no reports regarding physical battle damage. However, the Trump attack prompted an ominous warning from the spokesman for Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, who stated that a renewed US attack will be answered with a change in nuclear doctrine. He also said:
➡ In any future confrontation, the enemy will face a comprehensive, all-out surprise offensive from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
➡ We have many options available that were not even used during the 40-day war.
➡ Options such as withdrawal from the NPT, changing nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz are on the table for review.
➡ A bill for NPT withdrawal is also ready for review in parliament — and if Iran faces an existential threat, a change in nuclear doctrine could also be put on the agenda
Pressure is growing in Iran to withdraw from the MoU. The US has violated almost every section of the MoU while Iran has assiduously adhered to it — including keeping Hezbollah from going on the offensive against the Israelis. Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury announced on July 7 that the US would reinstate oil sanctions on Iran, which marks another clear violation of the MoU.
According to vesselfinder.com, the activity in the Strait of Hormuz as I write this article is scant, but the ships transiting the straight are abiding by Iran’s PGSA protocols. If Trump opts to continue attacking Iran on Thursday then I believe that Iran will expand the scope and severity of its retaliatory strikes. Without some immediate concessions from the US, I believe that Iran will agree with Trump — i.e., “The MoU is dead.”
MEMO | July 8, 2026
Million-strong crowds filled the streets of Iraq’s holy city of Najaf on Wednesday as funeral ceremonies for Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, began. His coffin will be taken to Karbala before returning to Iran for burial in Mashhad, bringing to an end a week-long farewell.
Iranian leaders sought to reflect Khamenei’s status during the ceremonies. He led the Islamic Republic for nearly four decades before being killed in US-Israeli strikes on his residence in Tehran on 28 February, attacks that marked the start of the Middle East war.
Khamenei’s funeral in Iraq coincided with renewed tensions between Iran and the United States over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which was a major flashpoint during the regional conflict.
The US military said it had carried out strikes on more than 80 Iranian targets in response to attacks on three ships in the Strait of Hormuz that Washington blamed on Tehran. In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had targeted dozens of US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait.
Khamenei’s coffin arrived at Najaf International Airport late on Tuesday, where it was received by Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi and other political and military figures.
Iraq declared Wednesday a public holiday to allow citizens to take part in the funeral ceremonies before the coffin returns to Iran for the final burial in Mashhad.
Press TV – July 8, 2026
Iran has issued a firm warning that it will not back down from its management of the Strait of Hormuz and is prepared to fight to maintain control over the strategic waterway, an informed security source told Press TV on Wednesday.
The source revealed that developments over the past 48 hours have solidified Tehran’s resolve, with a new military and strategic doctrine now in place.
According to the source, Iran’s updated strategy dictates that in the event of any fresh attack on Iranian soil or interests, the Islamic Republic will respond with overwhelming force.
The source elaborated on Iran’s new retaliatory framework, stating that following any strike against Iran, two immediate actions will be taken: first, the Strait of Hormuz will be completely closed to all maritime traffic; and second, Iran will strike enemy targets at a ratio of at least two to one, meaning that for every Iranian target hit, at least two enemy targets will be struck in return.
“The memorandum of understanding signed on this matter clearly states that Iran will reopen the Strait in accordance with its own arrangements. Therefore, Iran will not permit the establishment of any new route outside the framework of its own arrangements,” the source said.
The source also addressed recent threats made by US President Donald Trump, delivering a blunt message to Washington.
“Any threat will receive a powerful response. Iran does not distinguish between the United States and its partners in the region,” the source told Press TV.
“Trump will gain nothing from these recent threats, but he will certainly lose both the Strait of Hormuz and the negotiations over a final agreement. The choice is now his.”
The warning comes amid rising tensions in the Persian Gulf region, after the US military carried out a fresh round of illegal and unprovoked strikes against Iran’s coastal areas early on Wednesday.
US launched military strikes on a number of coastal bases and non-military stations in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province and Mahshahr, which openly violates the ceasefire.
In response, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) struck 85 US military targets in Bahrain and Kuwait with missiles and drones in an initial response to the American aggression.
The IRGC said the strikes hit facilities at Port Salman, the US Fifth Fleet’s area in Bahrain, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. It also announced the downing of an MQ-9 drone, saying the aircraft attempted to interfere with the operation before it was shot down.
In a statement earlier on Wednesday, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said any source of support for the “aggressor US army” will be considered a legitimate target for Iranian armed forces.
“The source of any support for the aggressor US army to violate the sovereignty and territory of Islamic Iran will be a legitimate target for the armed forces,” the top military command center warned.
It said that the only safe route for commercial ships and oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz is the path designated by Iran, and that Tehran will not allow any interference in the management of the Strait.
Iranian parliament speaker and lead negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf also slammed the US for committing major violations of the Iran-US memorandum of understanding (MoU), stressing that Washington’s “era of bullying and extortion” is over.
“Major MoU violations by the US: [1.] Violating Iranian adjustments in the Strait, [2.] Reinstating oil sanctions, [3.] Attacks on southern Iran, [4.] Continued Zionist aggression on Lebanon,” he said.
“The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold.”
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | July 7, 2026
Laura Loomer, the unhinged Zionist commentator with the Trump White House’s ear, continues her attempt to use lawfare to silence reporters and commentators opposed to the American/Zionist war on Iran.
Anti-War journalist Max Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone, is currently on the ground reporting on the funeral for slain Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei.
For daring to report on this important historical moment, the unhinged Zionist commentator, Laura Loomer called for Blumenthal- an American citizen- to lose his citizenship and be raided by the FBI for the crime of doing journalism.
On X, Loomer disturbingly wrote :
Max Blumenthal You’re a shill for Islam and communism and I hope you’re raided in a heavily armed raid by the FBI at 5 am and that SecRubio strips you of your passport for aiding the Iranian regime as they chant Death to America.
I hope SecScottBessent investigates how you paid for your trip to Iran, or if it was given to you by Iran and IRGC supporters so you are charged and prosecuted for possible sanctions violations.
Loomer tagged the FBI, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessent in the post, in an obvious attempt to get a bogus lawfare investigation launched against Max Blumenthal because he gave a voice to the millions of Iranians who came out in defiance of the U.S/Israeli war of aggression.
This is far from the first time Loomer has attempted to get the Trump White House to crack down on critics of the war in Iran.
Previously, Loomer spearheaded a campaign to get the co-founder of the anti-war, realist think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Trita Parsi, deported from the country for his opposition to the war in Iran.
Loomer, on X, made similar threats against Parsi, saying he “should be deported next” and directly telling him that “your days in our country are numbered”.
On X, Loomer wrote :
Secretary Rubio
Just so you know, Trita Parsi is also a Green Card holder.
He holds citizenship in Iran and Sweden.
Trita Parsi is a mouthpiece for the Iranian Regime and has used NIAC and the Quincy Institute to push out pro-Iranian regime talking points.
He should be deported next.
He is truly a threat to US National Security.
After the Israel lobby successfully primaried the anti-war Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, Loomer posted a picture with him next to Trita Parsi and wrote:
Hey Trita Parsi ,
Your boy Thomas Massie is about to be removed from Congress, and then…you’re probably going to be deported back to Iran.
Tick tock.
Your days in our country are numbered.
Loomer’s disturbing threats were following by an article from the Zionist propaganda blog, The Free Press, which falsely claimed that “In the eyes of some inside the Trump administration, Parsi isn’t just another Washington pundit eager to share his point of view. The State Department has launched an investigation of Parsi and could try to deport him, according to U.S. officials and documents reviewed by The Free Press.”
The State Department later clarified that “The State Department has no plans to revoke the green card of Mr. Parsi at this time”, but Trita Parsi said he believed that “some elements within the State Department wanted to start one and thought external pressure could help move things forward” following the threats from Loomer.
Before her attempt to deport Trita Parsi, Laura Loomer successfully got two Iranian women opposed to the U.S/Israeli war on Iran detained by ICE over false claims that they were related to the late Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.
Loomer boasted on social media , “Following my report and follow up with the US State Department in which I exposed the fact that Qasem Soleimani’s Niece Hamideh Soleimani Afshar has been living in the United States (Los Angeles, California) where she posts pro-Iranian regime and pro-IRGC content on her social media while she lives a life of luxury, the US State Department and SecRubio have just revoked her green card and she has been picked up by ICE. She has been arrested and will be deported back to Iran.”
ICE also detained her daughter, Sarina Hosseiny.
But as journalists Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain revealed , the two women had no connection to Qasem Soleimani.
They documented:
A review of personal documentation undercuts the allegation of a personal connection to Soleimani. Birth certificates from Iran, collected by the family, lay out a documented family tree spanning multiple generations with no connection to Qassem Soleimani, or even to relatives of the late general. Drop Site also reviewed other personal identification documents, including passports, family photographs, and work documentation from both Iran and the U.S. that strongly contradict the allegations that the two women were connected to the late Iranian military commander, or living lavishly from any connection to the Iranian government.
In order for Qasem Soleimani to be Hamideh’s uncle, based on her last name, he would need to be the brother of Hamideh’s father, Ali Soleimani-Afshar, who was born in Tehran in 1947. Yet according to the documents, Soleimani-Afshar had no brothers at all and his father died in the early 50s. Gen. Soleimani was born years later—in 1957—in a small village in the southern province of Kerman. Ali Soleimani-Afshar’s parents died in his childhood. Historical passport documents also show that Soleimani-Afshar’s family origins go back generations to the city of Yazd in central Iran, a province away from the roots of Gen. Soleimani.
The late general is also known to have two brothers, Sohrab and Hossein, who have previously given interviews about their upbringing in rural Kerman that identify themselves as his only brothers and make no mention of a connection to Ali Soleimani-Afshar.
Qassem Soleimani’s own family in Iran issued numerous strident denials that they had any relation to the late general. Soleimani’s youngest daughter, Zeinab Soleimani, a well-known political figure inside Iran, said in Iranian media that the State Department’s allegations were ‘false’ and that ‘the individuals arrested in the United States have no connection whatsoever to our family.’ Another daughter, Narjes Soleimani, went further in a separate statement, adding that, ‘To this day, no member of the Soleimani family, nor any relative of General Soleimani, has resided in the United States
Emboldened after having the state department use her false claims to detain and deport critics of the Iran war, Loomer is now trying to use her connections to the U.S. state department to have critics of the Iran war- even U.S. citizens like Max Blumenthal- stripped of their citizenship.
By Jose Nino | Occidental Review | July 7, 2026
The hawks who pushed the United States into its most expensive military operation in decades are already planning the next one. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, two of the most listened-to Jewish voices in conservative media, have made clear in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding that they view the current peace not as a resolution but as an intermission, one they intend to use to rebuild the political and military conditions for a return to war.
Ben Shapiro published a Daily Wire piece titled “Why Trump Signed The Agreement With Iran,” explaining the MOU while making clear his deep reservations. In the same Fox News appearance hours after the text was released, he simultaneously called the war “the signal act of political bravery, perhaps, of my lifetime” and labeled the Memorandum of Understanding “a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning.” Shapiro laid out five specific objectives he said the administration had named —ending all nuclear enrichment, dismantling ballistic missiles, ending support for so-called terrorist proxies, permanently reopening the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, and conditioning sanctions relief on Iranian compliance—and argued the MOU met none of them. Despite his public condemnation of the deal, he nonetheless stopped short of urging Trump to reject it, thus revealing something more significant than mere disagreement. It exposed a proposed recalibration among hawkish commentators who now appear to be laying the groundwork for a resumption of hostilities after the November midterm elections.
While commentators debated the terms of the deal, the war itself had already delivered its verdict in blood. The war they championed exacted a staggering price. Operation Epic Fury, which began on February 28, 2026, killed between 7,144 and 9,676 people across multiple countries while wounding approximately 46,965 more. Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs confirmed 3,468 Iranian deaths while independent monitors documented higher figures. Among the dead were 240 women and 212 children. One American strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Hormozgan province on February 28 killed approximately 175 to 180 people—the majority of them schoolchildren—a strike investigated by the New York Times, BBC Verify, Reuters, NPR, and CBC all of which concluded the United States was likely responsible. Over 4,000 people were killed in Lebanon according to its Health Ministry.
The economic devastation proved equally severe. The Pentagon reported spending $29 billion by May 12, though this figure excluded damage to American military bases from Iranian retaliation and the costs of munitions expended. By June, the Pentagon sought an additional $87.6 billion supplemental from Congress to cover the full costs of the campaign. Harvard economist Linda Bilmes projected that total costs could reach $1 trillion when accounting for long-term ripple effects including veteran care, replenishment of depleted weapons stockpiles, and regional economic disruption. Iran estimated its losses at $270 billion and demanded compensation as a condition of broader peace negotiations. CSIS independently assessed the total U.S. military campaign cost at approximately $34 to $42 billion—a figure that excluded base damage, munitions replacement costs, and long-term obligations.
This catastrophic toll apparently failed to satisfy those who pushed hardest for the conflict. Mark Levin emerged as the most explicit voice calling for a strategic pause followed by renewed military action. On June 18, the same day CNN reported that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was actively using pro-Israel media figures to influence the deal, Levin posted on X/Twitter his prescription for the path forward. “Time for a change in strategy. We should consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out. Instead of rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry, transferring billions to them, etc.”
Levin had advocated for military action against Iran long before the war began. He reportedly lobbied Trump directly at a private White House lunch in early June, falsely warning that Iran was “days away from a nuclear weapon”—a claim the U.S. intelligence community did not support. On his show in May he had argued that “The mass-murdering death cult that is the Iranian regime is not going to commit suicide” and that “they cannot” abide by any deal “because as a matter of religious and political ideology and doctrine, they will not in the end bend to the demands of the great Satan.”
Shapiro adopted a position less explicit but functionally identical. After the MOU was signed at Versailles on June 18, he declared the agreement a disaster and hoped that Trump would return to bombing Iran after November’s midterms. He had previously called the war “the single bravest foreign policy move of my lifetime,” telling Lara Trump on Fox News that what Trump was doing in Iran “has the potential to be a true game changer for America’s role in the world,
The broader hawk faction echoed the same framework for restarting the conflict. Hugh Hewitt called the MOU “halftime” and predicted a return to war after the election. Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade added that “After the midterms, the gloves come off.” Media Matters described this as the hawks’ new “cope” strategy—a way to avoid criticizing Trump directly while keeping the door open for future military escalation.
These commentators built their case for war over several years. Shapiro praised Trump’s 2020 killing of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani as “utterly righteous,” calling Soleimani “one of the worst human beings on the planet,” and he consistently argued that Iran required direct confrontation rather than the appeasement he accused the Obama administration of pursuing. When Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, Shapiro published a syndicated column declaring that “two lies die: the lie that only negotiations can end the threat of a rogue state seeking nuclear weapons, and the lie that every conflict must necessarily become Iraq.” Levin appeared on Hannity right before the 2026 conflict to argue that “If this Islamic Nazi terrorist mass killing regime gets a nuclear weapon, will they use it? The answer is yes” and that “We don’t need to put up with their crap. It’s time to put it to an end.”
Despite the memorandum of understanding being signed on June 17, the conflict remains far from resolved. The deal lifted the U.S. naval blockade, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, created a 60-day window to negotiate permanent terms, and proposed a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Critics noted that despite the war’s enormous costs, Iran’s government remained intact, its ballistic missile program is still functional, and its support for regional resistance organizations like Hezbollah is still unwavering. The statements from Shapiro and Levin give the game away. They have already begun conditioning their audiences for a second round of bellicosity against the Islamic Republic.
For the likes of Shapiro and Levin, conservatism is merely a skinsuit they don, carefully tailored to win trust and influence within the American Right. But the substance beneath it has nothing to do with American national interests. Every war they cheer, every deal they oppose, every argument they make is calibrated toward using American blood and treasure as a battering ram for the interests of World Jewry. The consequences for the United States, the American people, and the families who bear the cost of their wars are simply not part of their calculation. It is time to stop mistaking their fluency in conservative language for loyalty to this country.
Glenn Diesen | July 7, 2026
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses the continued attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, the US efforts to renegotiate the MoU, the possibility of improved ties between Iran, the Arab States, and Turkey.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: