Col Douglas Macgregor: Pressure to REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE Growing
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026
BEN-GVIR: “ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN” — w/ Mouin Rabbani
Mario Nawfal | June 23, 2026
Europe/US/Ukraine Barreling To War w/Russia
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026
‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says
MEMO | June 23, 2026
Israel is not part of the negotiations between the US and Iran and will continue its offensive on Lebanon until Hezbollah is “fully dismantled,” not just disarmed, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said.
Smotrich, a far-right extremist member of Israel’s security cabinet, made the remarks Tuesday morning in an interview with Israeli Army Radio.
“Israel is not part of the negotiating talks with Iran by choice,” he said, adding: “We will not hold talks with the devil.”
“We are not a party to the negotiations between the United States and Iran, and they do not concern us at all,” Smotrich said.
“We will continue operating in Lebanon fully,” he added.
“The Israeli army will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon, including the Beaufort Castle, as long as Hezbollah exists,” he said.
“We will not withdraw not only until Hezbollah gives up its weapons, but until it is fully dismantled,” he continued.
“We do not only want Hezbollah to be stripped of its weapons, but to be fully dismantled, not be part of the government in Lebanon, and not have any military force that threatens Israel,” he said.
The remarks come amid growing disputes within Israeli political and security circles over a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran and their possible implications for ending the war on the Lebanese front.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and army chief Eyal Zamir vowed in a joint statement to continue controlling the “security zone” in southern Lebanon, despite the memorandum of understanding signed between the US and Iran, which calls for respecting Lebanon’s unity and territorial integrity.
“The [army] will continue to act decisively to thwart threats to our soldiers and civilians, destroy terror infrastructure, and continue maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon,” according to the statement.
“The security of Israel’s civilians and IDF troops will continue to remain before their eyes without compromise,” it added.
Israel received a message from the US in recent weeks that “the previous authorization for unrestricted action in Lebanon had expired,” Israel’s Channel 13 quoted an unnamed senior Israeli official Monday.
The Hebrew newspaper Maariv also reported Monday that there are differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanon file.
It also reported growing differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanese file, saying Washington views southern Lebanon within a broader regional framework linked to the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Trump administration’s pursuit of a diplomatic achievement.
In contrast, Israel believes that any early withdrawal from southern Lebanon could be interpreted as a sign of weakness and a reward for the Hezbollah group.
Israel and Lebanon are set to hold a fifth round of direct negotiations in Washington on Tuesday. The upcoming talks follow four previous rounds between the two sides that began in April as part of a track aimed at ending the Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US-mediated negotiations come as criticism grows inside Israel over Washington handling of talks with Iran and Hezbollah.
Israeli news site i24NEWS, citing Israeli officials, said Tel Aviv fears that an agreement between the US and Iran could strengthen Tehran and its allies in the region.
Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed more than 4,100 people and injured over 12,000 others since March 2, according to official Lebanese figures.
Israel continues to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, some held for decades and others seized during the 2023–2024 war.
Israeli Intel Whistleblower: Israel Ended Clinton Iran Deal With Epstein Blackmail
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 22, 2026
The former Israeli intelligence official turned whistleblower, Ari Ben-Menashe made some explosive claims to journalist Afshin Rattansi in the latest episode of his Going Underground TV Show, alleging that then president Bill Clinton made a deal with then Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, but then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a known close associate of Jeffery Epstein, used blackmail about Clinton’s known connection with Jeffery Epstein and his trafficking operation of underage girls, to end the deal.
Ben-Menashe alleges that in 2000 Bill Clinton “met President Khatami in Mirabel Airport north of Montreal and they worked out the deal between them”.
Ben-Menashe noted that “on March 17, 2000, Madeleine Albright made a speech at the American Iranian Council apologizing to the Iranian people for America overthrowing an elected government in 1952 in Iran and bringing the Shah back”
Indeed, on March 17, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a speech apologizing for the overthrow of Iran’s popular elected president Mohammed Massadegh in 1953, saying:
In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent.
As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.
This certainly suggested that the Clinton administration was trying to reset the U.S. and Iranian relationship, acknowledging Iran’s long list of legitimate grievances against the United States.
But according to Ari Ben-Menashe, the deal never went through because Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak “sabotaged” the deal using Epstein blackmail.
Ben-Menashe said, “But Ehud Barak and company sabotaged that deal by using Epstein and company against Mr. Clinton”.
Because Clinton had already gone through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this was enough for him to abandon diplomacy, according to Ben-Menashe.
Israel Brings The War Rhetoric Towards Türkiye
After Being Defeated In Iran, Israel Targets Türkiye.
By Justin K.P. – The Dissident – June 22, 2026
The idea of Israel going to war with Türkiye- a NATO member- potentially triggering World War III seems insane.
And yet Israel is using their war rhetoric towards Türkiye.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry put out a post seemingly laying the groundwork for an Israeli war, claiming that “Hamas terrorists based in Turkey are directing attacks against Israelis, funding terrorism, and recruiting operatives. The network is exposed. The facts are clear.”
This is far from the first time Israel has used war rhetoric towards Türkiye.
Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli recently said that Israel “will be at war with Syria sooner or later” in part because he called Syria “a Turkish protectorate”.
He also fabricated a new “radical Sunni axis of evil” which supposedly includes Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar.
Middle East Eye reported:
“What we are witnessing before our eyes is the rise of a new axis,” Chikli told 103FM radio on Wednesday, referring to Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan. He described this so-called alliance as “a radical Sunni axis of evil, more dangerous than anything we have seen before”.
While Chikli mentioned both Qatar and Pakistan in his interviews, he mainly focused on Turkey, branding Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vision “an extremely dangerous combination for us”.
Other members of the ruling Israeli Likud party have similarly been declaring Türkiye “an enemy state”.
Middle East Eye noted, “Last week, Israeli lawmaker Ariel Kellner, also of Likud, called Turkey an ‘enemy state’, while Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar said last month that Israel’“must begin to treat Turkey as an enemy state,’ suggesting that Turkey would suffer heavy blows in a possible conflict with Israel.”
It added that “In February, former prime minister Naftali Bennett indicated that he sees Turkey as an enemy, with the opposition figure stating: ‘Turkey is the new Iran.’”
Perhaps the most concerning development is the fact that the Foundation for The Defence of Democracies (FDD), an Israeli lobby cutout that played a large role in the U.S. war on Iran, has begun publishing articles using similar rhetoric towards Türkiye.
FDD put out an article titled , “Turkey the new Iran? Ankara’s growing challenge to Western interests”.
The article attempted to label Türkiye as the “new Iran”, writing:
As Iran and its proxies take a beating from American and Israeli forces, observers are questioning whether Turkey is waiting in the wings to emerge as the region’s next “bogeyman.” The answer is likely yes, albeit in its own form.
Turkey is not Iran, but depicting Turkey as a nuisance or simply “complicated” only emboldens a maturing adversarial regime with an established track record of undermining its Western allies.
The article attempted to ratchet up hostilities between Türkiye and the United States, writing, “The real question is whether Turkey is actively undermining US, NATO, and regional security interests. There is little doubt that Ankara is doing just that, and doing so more brazenly with the passage of time.”
It also lamented that Türkiye is too supportive of the Palestinian resistance, writing “Hamas, as an Iranian proxy, has served Ankara’s interests in undermining Israel’s security interests, something which Turkey would like to see intact after the end of the current war.”
FDD has similarly put out articles pushing for the U.S. to put sanctions on Türkiye, saying that “Washington should pursue Global Magnitsky sanctions against targets in Turkey” and that “the United States should utilize Global Magnitsky authorities to target Turkish individuals responsible for human rights violations”.
It also called for the U.S. to designate “government officials” in Türkiye as “terrorist organizations” and wrote that “The United States should protect the international financial sector by recommending added scrutiny and screening to transactions involving Turkish financial institutions” and that “Washington should coordinate with the G7 to return Turkey to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ‘grey list’ until further improvements are seen in combating terrorism financing.”
The Carnegie Endowment for Peace documented that “FDD was the brainchild of a New York Times journalist-turned-Republican operative, Clifford May,” adding that “it arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States. On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for ‘truth’). In an application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, May explained that the group ‘was to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.’ But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, May broadened the group’s mission and changed its name to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. As he explained in a supplement to the IRS, the group’s board of directors decided to focus on ‘develop[ing] educational materials on the eradication of terrorism everywhere in the world.’”
It added that, “FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations. They include Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, whiskey heirs Samuel and Edgar Bronfman, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, heiress Lynn Schusterman, Wall Street speculators Michael Steinhardt and Paul Singer, and Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare.”
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, admitted that “We have FDD” and that “the foundation is ‘working on’ projects for Israel, including ‘data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best”.
FDD played a huge role in shaping American policy towards Iran at the behest of Israel.
Now, as Israel calls Türkiye an “enemy state”- the FDD has begun pushing Washington to place sanctions on the country and designate government officials as terrorists, laying the groundwork for a new Israeli war.
The Swiss summit of imperial humiliation
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | June 22, 2026
In Switzerland, amid the alpine calm where empires go to perfume panic as diplomacy, Iran delivered another masterclass in the ancient art of refusing to kneel.
The Americans arrived with the usual imperial luggage: threats, ultimatums, sanctions theology, and that peculiar Washington habit of mistaking obedience for “peace.” Iran arrived with something far less fashionable and far more effective: leverage. Not the decorative leverage of think-tank seminars and cable-news generals, but the real kind — the kind that closes straits, terrifies markets, freezes war rooms, and forces the self-appointed masters of the universe to rediscover geography.
The spectacle would be hilarious if it were not so historically obscene.
For decades, Washington imagined Iran could be sanctioned into hunger, bombed into prudence, insulted into submission, and finally dragged into a room to sign its own humiliation.
Instead, the empire found itself bargaining with a country it had failed to break. The result was not Iranian capitulation. It was American improvisation — and improvisation by a declining empire always sounds the same: threats in public, panic in private, and a desperate attempt to rename retreat as strategy.
This is the deeper meaning of Switzerland. It is not merely a diplomatic episode. It is a theatre of reversal. The United States entered the crisis assuming Iran would negotiate like a wounded state. Iran is negotiating like a victorious one. It did not ask for mercy. It is demanding implementation. It did not plead for relief. It is presenting conditions. It did not enter the room as an accused party awaiting sentencing. It is entering as a power whose red lines have acquired consequences.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz matters. In the fantasy literature of American empire, waterways are lines on maps guarded by aircraft carriers and narrated by admirals. In reality, they are political arteries. When Iran demonstrated that it could interrupt the world’s most sensitive energy passage, it did more than create a shipping problem. It shattered a mythology. The empire discovered, rather late in its education, that the sea has neighbors — and that those neighbors have memories.
Washington’s response was pure imperial farce. Trump threatened, blustered, contradicted himself, and performed his usual routine: half Caesar, half casino promoter, with the emotional discipline of a man losing an argument to a mirror. One moment he wanted a deal; the next he wanted tribute.
One moment he spoke of peace; the next he threatened annihilation. This was not statecraft. It was strategic delirium dressed up as presidential resolve.
Yet beneath the orange thunder was the essential fact: America needed the strait open, the markets calm, the war contained, and the humiliation disguised. Iran understood this. More importantly, Iran acted on it.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, performed the role history has assigned him: arsonist in a fireman’s helmet. His political survival depends on permanent emergency. War is not merely his instrument; it is his oxygen. Defeat must be repackaged as deterrence, slaughter as security, occupation as necessity, and humiliation as a “strategic achievement.”
Israel’s problem is not that it miscalculates occasionally. Its problem is that it has built an entire political theology around impunity — and then acted shocked when impunity met resistance.
But this time the room for Israeli theatrics narrowed. Iran’s pressure, Hezbollah’s endurance, the strain on global markets, and Washington’s fear of economic catastrophe produced a rare collision between Israeli maximalism and American self-preservation. For once, unconditional support for Israel began to look expensive even to its underwriters. Let us not become sentimental: this was not morality awakening in Washington. It was arithmetic. But in imperial politics, arithmetic sometimes does what conscience is too cowardly to attempt.
Here lies the exquisite irony. The United States spent decades trying to teach Iran the meaning of pressure. Iran returned the lesson, corrected the grammar, and underlined the thesis. Pressure is not a press release. It is not a Lindsey Graham war fantasy delivered between television segments. It is not Netanyahu’s sweaty monologues about victory while the region watches his project rot from within. Pressure is the ability to alter the enemy’s choices. In Switzerland, Iran is proving it can do precisely that.
The Americans may still posture. Trump may still rage into the digital void. Netanyahu may still deliver speeches polished with self-pity and fraud. The professional warmongers may continue promising wars they will never fight, depressions they will never suffer, and corpses they will never count. But beneath the noise sits the brutal reality: Iran survived the siege, absorbed the blows, retained escalation dominance, defended its allies, protected its sovereignty, and forced the conversation onto terrain of its choosing.
That is the defeat Washington cannot confess and Israel cannot metabolize. Not merely that Iran endured, but that Iran emerged demanding compliance. Not merely that coercion failed, but that the coerced state exposed the coercer’s dependence. Not merely that the empire blinked, but that everyone saw it blink.
Switzerland, then, is not a peace summit in the ordinary sense. It is a mirror held up to American power. What stares back is not omnipotence, but exhaustion dressed as menace.
Iran’s message could not be clearer: no surrender, no submission, no confession of guilt to satisfy an empire addicted to obedience. If Washington wants de-escalation, it must pay in substance. If it wants open waterways, it must respect red lines. If it wants agreements, it must implement them. And if it insists on calling this diplomacy, it should begin with the only honest admission available: coercion failed, Iran stood, and the age of bullying Tehran into submission is over.
Trump’s Attempt to End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty
By Ron Paul | June 22, 2026
Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.
President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.
However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.
Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.
Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.
And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.
This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.
Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.
Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.
The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.
It is a reminder of why the Founders intended to make sure that any war must be declared by the people’s Representatives before the first bullet is shot: it should be very hard to launch wars.
Nevertheless, those who are truly against the wars should, in my opinion, hold their fire for the time being in hope that a lasting resolution can be found. The President Is being attacked from all sides by the war party. Now may not be the best time for the peace party to join in.
First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2026
Following the conclusion of the first round of the Iran-US talks in Switzerland on Monday, the media committee of the Iranian negotiating delegation issued a statement outlining the main points and understandings reached during the talks.
The Bürgenstock talks outline a phased framework linking security arrangements, financial measures, and sanctions relief to conditional implementation steps.
Key developments include a Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism, structured communication over the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated asset release arrangements, and temporary sanctions relief measures tied to energy exports.
Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism
According to the statement, continued pressure from the Iranian negotiating delegation since Saturday afternoon contributed to maintaining a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon for the time being.
To support stabilization efforts, the parties agreed to establish a monitoring framework titled the “Conflict Control Unit.” Iran is expected to participate in this mechanism, which will oversee developments related to the ceasefire.
The statement further noted that this arrangement would formally integrate the Islamic Republic of Iran into Lebanon’s security-related discussions, despite US efforts in recent months to exclude Iran from Lebanese affairs. It also stated that “Israel” will have no role in this mechanism.
Strait of Hormuz communication channel
Regarding discussions on the Strait of Hormuz, the statement said an understanding was reached to establish a communication channel aimed at addressing potential implementation issues.
Through this channel, relevant parties would be able to directly contact Iran and present concerns related to maritime coordination and regional navigation.
It characterized this arrangement as part of broader discussions on the management and gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Conditional launch of nuclear and sanctions working groups
The agreement also includes the formation of three working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and monitoring mechanisms.
These groups are set to begin their work only after the implementation of Article 13 of the memorandum of understanding, which outlines several key steps, including:
- A ceasefire across all fronts, particularly in Lebanon
- Initial steps toward lifting the naval blockade
- Release of frozen Iranian assets
- Issuance of waivers lifting sanctions on oil and petrochemical exports
Iran will not enter the final phase of negotiations before these conditions are fulfilled.
Iran–Qatar agreement on frozen assets
During the same round of talks, Iran and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the release of Iranian frozen assets. The agreement is presented as part of ongoing financial and diplomatic coordination between the two sides regarding outstanding economic issues.
US OFAC 60-day sanctions suspension
The statement also referenced documents issued by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) during the negotiations.
According to the statement, these documents provide for a 60-day suspension of sanctions targeting oil, petrochemical, and related sectors. This arrangement would allow Iran to resume oil sales to its customers and receive payments through formal mechanisms managed by the Central Bank, the statement explained.
Bilateral and trilateral meetings at Bürgenstock resort
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva Bureau chief reported on Sunday that various bilateral and trilateral meetings have begun at the Bürgenstock resort ahead of the first official session of Iran-US talks. The opening session took place at 2:30 PM al-Quds time.
The first file discussed after the inaugural session was the implementation of the first clause, which relates to ending the war, particularly on Lebanon.
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva bureau chief later reported that the Iranian delegation held talks with the Qatari delegation in Geneva to discuss the ceasefire in Lebanon. He also reported that, following a meeting with the Iranian delegation, the Pakistani Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff held talks with the US delegation, headed by Vice President JD Vance.
According to an Iranian official, speaking to CNN on Saturday, before departing for Switzerland, Vance said that one of the top concerns included in the talks would be to make progress towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. “I think we’re going to hopefully make progress on the nuclear issue, make progress on the Lebanon ceasefire issue. Those are the two big things that I think we’re going to be focused on,” the US vice president told reporters, noting that he expected to participate in the talks for only “a day or two”.
IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
Mario Nawfal | June 21, 2026
Iran delegation protests Trump’s threat at Switzerland talks, weighs ‘proper’ response: Source
Press TV – June 21, 2026
The Iranian delegation to talks with the United States has raised objections directly with the American side over President Donald Trump’s latest threat of further military strikes, and is now weighing its next steps, a source told Press TV.
“The Iranian delegation has raised its objections to the American side and is currently assessing the conditions to give a proper response to Trump’s verbal threats,” the source said on Sunday.
Trump on Sunday threatened to restart war with Iran, warning Tehran to rein in its allies in Lebanon or face renewed and more powerful US military strikes.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform, referring to US war against the Islamic Republic, which started late February.
The threat was made as Iranian and American delegations were engaged in critical negotiations, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, at the Bürgenstock resort in central Switzerland, where they are working to implement a 14-point memorandum of understanding.
The talks were the first to be held under the terms of the Islamabad MoU agreed a week ago.
Trump’s threat of further military action against Iran is a direct contravention of US commitments under the interim deal, whose clause 1 commits both parties “not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
A source close to Iran’s negotiating team later told Tasnim news agency that the Iranian delegation left the venue of talks with the United States in protest over Trump’s latest threat.
Terms of US capitulation to Iran presage new era for the region
By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | June 21, 2026
After a week where it seemed the US-“Israel” and Iran were inevitably sliding back into open war, President Trump finally decided to cut his losses and snatch defeat from the jaws of catastrophe. The terms of his submission to Iran, aptly signed in the Palace of Versailles, enter the historical record as among the most humiliating articles of surrender ever accepted, not least by a supposed global hegemon.
On the sidelines of the G7 summit in Switzerland, no less than Trump himself admitted that his decision to accede to almost all of Iran’s demands was meant to forestall an imminent economic depression triggered by the Hormuz blockade. Still more jarringly, all of the many systemic concessions given by Washington; the ending of the US naval blockade, the immediate suspension of US sanctions against Tehran, the handing over of Iran’s sovereign assets frozen around the world, the muzzling of “Israel” from continuing its pyromaniacal rampage of the last three years- all of this was given by Washington in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (open before the war) and Iran’s willingness to negotiate the status of its nuclear program later on.
Of the agreed conditions, the most jaw-dropping article, which many found exceedingly difficult to take seriously, was the establishment of a fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran, amounting to $300 billion. The most up-to-date estimates of the damages caused to the Iranian economy by the US-Israeli aggression totaled $270 billion, a figure likely to be preliminary rather than final. Alongside this eye-watering sum, Tehran has already begun exporting its energy and petrochemical products free from the constraints of US primary and secondary sanctions, something almost certain to become permanent, while its $100 to $150 billions of international assets will bring in an added infusion of economic activity. Added to this the implicit acceptance – or at least not rejection – of Tehran’s right to levy charges on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (though not for 60 days) and the Islamic Republic emerges from this war the overwhelming beneficiary of its consequences, achieving in four months of war what five decades of intermittent and painstaking diplomacy could not.
The $300 billion sum functions in effect as an indemnity, a tribute extracted from the treasury of the defeated party in exchange for the granting of peace. Scores of Roman emperors knew full well the significance of the principle, as they had to repeatedly perform this ritual of humiliation before the Iranians countless times over the course of their seven-century-long rivalry in the Late Ancient Period.
In both of their efforts to contain the humiliation of this clause, Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, have been at pains to emphasize that Washington will not be paying any of its own funds to the Iranians for this purpose. In his Thursday press conference, the Vice-President identified that regional states – the Gulf Cooperation Council, which he repeatedly labelled the “Gulf Coast Coalition” – would be “free” to invest in the Iranian economy if they wished to.
This is, and would be, a monumental shift for Washington to even countenance such an arrangement. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has specifically threatened the mechanism through which the US (and to a lesser extent European) economy has siphoned off the wealth of the Arab world and the capital of the Global South, the infamous ‘petro-dollar cycle’. These states exist specifically for the purpose of recycling their energy revenues into the Western economy through arms deals, acquisitions, and investments in Western financial institutions. Trump himself has personified this process more completely than any other president.
That Trump would give his signature, willingly or otherwise, to the GCC pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the Iranian economy to reconstruct and repair what he destroyed, obviously is demonstrative of which side is the victor in this war. It also signals a shift in the regional balance of power that has truly global ramifications.
If the flow of petro-revenues illustrates the relative strength of the recipient economy, then it shows the war set in motion an increase in Iranian power that grants it competing access to the region’s vast surplus revenues – that is competing with the US.
Even if the process started by the signing of the MoU collapses and the $300 billion fund doesn’t materialize, Tehran’s capacity to challenge – and potentially displace the US as the hegemon of the Persian Gulf, is now a thinkable scenario.
As the consequences of this war continue to unfold and the true increase in the Islamic Republic’s relative power becomes more apparent, it will begin to exert a gravitational pull that makes security under its umbrella a more realistic proposition to the GCC states than the empty promise of American Patriot batteries or fantasies of normalization with “Israel.”
Strategic Oil Reserve Nears Collapse… US Must Choose: Guns or Butter
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 21, 2026
As of the week ending June 12, 2026, the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) held approximately 340.25 million barrels of crude oil… Sounds like a lot, but it is approaching the danger zone. In late May, that number was 372 million barrels, which consisted of Sweet crude: ~142 MMB | Sour crude: ~230 MMB, according to the US Department of Energy.
The oil is stored in caverns at four sites:
- Bryan Mound: ~166 MMB
- Big Hill: ~90 MMB
- West Hackberry: ~72 MMB
- Bayou Choctaw: ~44 MMB
To understand how perilous the situation is you need to know that if the oil level in these caverns falls below a certain level that the structural integrity of the caverns would be jeopardized. The most commonly cited operational floor is around 20% of capacity. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, told CNN that the SPR must be at least 20% full to remain operational — that’s roughly 143 million barrels against the SPR’s ~727 million barrel design capacity.
So subtract 143 barrels from 340.25… That means the US only has 197.25 million barrels left before the caverns could face irreparable damage. If the US consumers, who use 20 million barrels a day, had to rely exclusively on the SPR, the US only has less than a 9-day supply of reserves. If you compare the amount reported at the end of May (i.e., 372 MMb) with the June 15th report, the US is drawing 16 million barrels a week from the reserve. This is the optimistic scenario, i.e., the US has roughly a 12-day supply before the proverbial shit hits the fan.
But wait, it gets worse. The US Military has blown through its jet fuel reserves. The problem is compounded becuase Diesel reserves are at 25 year low. Diesel and Jet Fuel are critical Distillates. So the Trump administration must make a choice: support the military jets with jet fuel, or support the trucking Fleet with enough diesel fuel, to provide food and products to US consumers. Trump can’t wage war and keep the economy going at the current rate because diesel and jet fuel compete with each other when comes to production. So the question is, do you want to wage war or do you wanna save the economy and keep the trucks moving on the road? This is the main reason Trump signed the MoU with Iran.
A friend who is an energy analyst summarized the dilemma as follows:
The strategic warning is that the United States cannot assume it can fight a major fuel-intensive conflict and protect the domestic economy without tradeoffs. Military jet fuel, commercial aviation fuel, diesel, heating oil, and marine fuel all draw from the middle distillate portion of the refined barrel. Refineries can bias output, but they cannot instantly maximize every middle-distillate product at once.
The risk is not that every truck or aircraft stops at once. The risk is that a forced fuel-priority decision creates cascading shortages and price shocks across logistics, aviation, agriculture, construction, and consumer supply chains. A war-time jet-fuel surge could reduce the diesel cushion; a civil-aviation diversion could disrupt passenger movement and air cargo. Either channel can become recessionary because both diesel and jet fuel are operating fuels for the real economy.
The US is not the only country or region facing a massive problem. Europe is screwed. An April 2026 report by Karl Miller — The Iran War, the Strait of Hormuz and Europe’s Compound Energy Trap — spells out the danger facing Europe. Here is the Executive Summary:
This report assesses whether the European Union faces a structural energy-security Prisoner’s Dilemma with Russia, with Germany at its centre and the Persian Gulf crisis as the accelerant. The argument is blunt: the Union has deprived itself of the low-cost Russian oil and gas system that underpinned much of its industrial base, while the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz disruption have simultaneously impaired the maritime energy system that supplies a decisive share of the world’s oil, refined products and LNG.
Europe is on its knees in strategic terms. It is not literally without emergency stocks, because EU and IEA rules require minimum oil inventories. The harder reality is more damaging: those inventories are finite, unevenly usable, commercially fragile and unable to replace the normal flow of crude, diesel, jet fuel, LPG, naphtha and LNG through global markets. Emergency stocks buy time; they do not restore cheap Russian pipeline gas, reopen Hormuz, rebuild refining flexibility or prevent member states from bidding against one another.
The EU therefore faces a compound trap. Russian gas is being removed by law, Persian Gulf flows are exposed to war, U.S. LNG has become indispensable but expensive, storage refill is costly, and Germany’s industrial model remains dependent on affordable dispatchable energy. Each member state can rationally protect itself through bilateral contracts, subsidies, exemptions and emergency procurement, yet those same choices weaken the Union’s collective bargaining power and deepen fragmentation.
The conclusion is that the EU is locked into a repeated, asymmetric collective-action game. Escaping it requires enforceable solidarity, shared critical-fuels planning, coordinated storage, firm-capacity realism, a diversified LNG portfolio, strategic petroleum-product management, and legal reforms that make cooperation faster and more profitable than national defection.
Featured Video
Armando Mema: Finland Used as New Frontline Against Russia
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Documentary
Hospital Horror
Documented in the film,“Bad Medicine”
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Poland and Bulgaria put brakes on Ukraine weapons funding
- Russia Reaffirms Its Support for Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity of Lebanon – Russian MFA
- Araghchi: Failure to punish aggressors against Iran endangers all nations
- Iran tells UN Security Council to stop reversing roles of ‘aggressor and victim’
- Disgraced neocons Feith & Libby: stop whining about ‘endless war’
- CENTCOM rejects Israeli claims of preparations for new Iran attacks
- Your Shopping Bag Runs Through Hormuz
- Armando Mema: Finland Used as New Frontline Against Russia
- Gestapo 2.0? Germany grants spy agencies sweeping new powers
- Franco-Palestinian group seeks court ban on Israeli real estate fair in Paris
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Barents Sea Temperatures Were Warmer And Sea Ice Less Extensive In The 1700s Than Today
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
