Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘Break-a-Leg’ (that old Mafia warning) – Trump has threatened Iran over an ultimatum that likely cannot be met

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 7, 2025

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran? Colonel Doug Macgregor compares the Trump ultimatum to Iran to that which Austria-Hungary delivered to Serbia in 1914: An offer, in short, that ‘could not be refused’. Serbia accepted nine out of the ten demands. But it refused one – and Austria-Hungary immediately declared war.

On 4 February, shortly after his Inauguration, President Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM); that is to say, a legally binding directive requiring government agencies to carry out the specified actions precisely.

The demands are that Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon; denied inter-continental missiles, and denied too other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities. All these demands go beyond the NPT and the existing JCPOA. To this end, the NSPM directs maximum economic pressure be imposed; that the U.S. Treasury act to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero; that the U.S. work to trigger JCPOA Snapback of sanctions; and that Iran’s “malign influence abroad” – its “proxies” – be neutralised.

The UN sanctions snapback expires in October, so time is short to fulfil the procedural requirements to Snapback. All this suggests why Trump and Israeli officials give Spring as the deadline to a negotiated agreement.

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran appears to be moving the U.S. down a path to where war is the only outcome, as occurred in 1914 – an outcome which ultimately triggered WW1.

Might this just be Trump bluster? Possibly, but it does sound as if Trump is issuing legally binding demands such that he must expect cannot be met. Acceptance of Trump’s demands would leave Iran neutered and stripped of its sovereignty, at the very least. There is an implicit ‘tone’ to these demands too, that is one of threatening and expecting regime change in Iran as its outcome.

It may be Trump bluster, but the President has ‘form’ (past convictions) on this issue. He has unabashedly hewed to the Netanyahu line on Iran that the JCPOA (or any deal with Iran) was ‘bad’. In May 2014, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA at Netanyahu’s behest and instead issued a new set of 12 demands to Iran – including permanently and verifiably abandoning its nuclear programme in perpetuity and ceasing all uranium enrichment.

What is the difference between those earlier Trump demands and those of this February? Essentially they are the same, except today he says: If Iran “doesn’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before”.

Thus, there is both history, and the fact that Trump is surrounded – on this issue at least – by a hostile cabal of Israeli Firsters and Super Hawks. Witkoff is there, but is poorly grounded on the issues. Trump too, has shown himself virtually totalitarian in terms of any and all criticism of Israel in American Academia. And in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, he is fully supportive of Netanyahu’s far-right provocative and expansionist agenda.

These present demands regarding Iran also run counter to the 25 March 2025 latest annual U.S. Intelligence Threat Assessment that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon. This Intelligence Assessment is effectively disregarded. A few days before its release, Trump’s National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz clearly stated that the Trump Administration is seeking the “full dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear energy program: “Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see”, Waltz said. “It is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon”.

On the one hand, it seems that behind these ultimata stands a President made “pissed off and angry” at his inability to end the Ukraine war almost immediately – as he first mooted – together with pressures from a bitterly fractured Israel and a volatile Netanyahu to compress the timeline for the speedy ‘finishing off’ of the Iranian ‘regime’ (which, it is claimed, has never been weaker). All so that Israel can normalise with Lebanon –and even Syria. And with Iran supposedly ‘disabled’, pursue implementation of the Greater Israel project to be normalised across the Middle East.

Which, on the other hand, will enable Trump to pursue the ‘long-overdue’ grand pivot to China. (And China is energy-vulnerable – regime change in Tehran would be a calamity, from the Chinese perspective).

To be plain, Trump’s China strategy needs to be in place too, in order to advance Trump’s financial system re-balancing plans. For, should China feel itself besieged, it could well act as a spoiler to Trump’s re-working of the American and global financial system.

The Washington Post reports on a ‘secret’ Pentagon memo from Hegseth that “China [now] is the Department’s sole pacing threat, [together] with denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland”.

The ‘force planning construct’ (a concept of how the Pentagon will build and resource the armed services to take on perceived threats) will only consider conflict with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war, the Pentagon memo says, leaving the threat from Moscow largely to be attended by European allies.

Trump wants to be powerful enough credibly to threaten China militarily, and therefore wants Putin to agree speedily to a ceasefire in Ukraine, so that military resources can quickly be moved to the China theatre.

On his flight back to Washington last Sunday evening, Trump reiterated his annoyance toward Putin, but added “I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word, I’ve known him for a long time. We’ve always gotten along well”. Asked when he wanted Russia to agree to a ceasefire, Trump said there was a “psychological deadline” – “If I think they’re tapping us along, I will not be happy about it”.

Trump’s venting against Russia may, perhaps, have an element of reality-TV to it. For his domestic audience, he needs to be perceived as bringing ‘peace through strength’ – to keep up the Alpha-Male appearance, lest the truth of his lack of leverage over Putin becomes all too apparent for the American public and to the world.

Part of the reason for Trump’s frustration too, may be his cultural formation as a New York businessman; that a deal is about first dominating the negotiations, and then quickly ‘splitting the difference’. This, however, is not how diplomacy works. The transactional approach also reflects deep conceptual flaws.

The Ukraine ceasefire process is stalled, not because of Russian intransigence, but rather because Team Trump has determined that achieving a settlement in Ukraine comes firstly through insisting on a unilateral and immediate ceasefire – without introducing temporary governance to enable elections in Ukraine, nor addressing the root causes of the conflict. And secondly, because Trump rushed in, without listening to what the Russians were saying, and/or without hearing it.

Now that initial pleasantries are over, and Russia is saying flatly that current ‘ceasefire’ proposals simply are inadequate and unacceptable, Trump becomes angry and lashes out at Putin, saying that 25% tariffs on Russian oil could happen ANY moment.

Putin and Iran are both now under ‘deadlines’ (a ‘psychological’ one in Putin’s case), so as to enable Trump to proceed with credibly threatening China to come to a ‘deal’ soon – as the global economy is already wobbling.

Trump fumes and spits fire. He tries to hurry matters along by making a big show of bombing the Houthis, boasting that they have been hit hard, with many Houthi leaders killed. Yet, such callousness towards Yemeni civilian deaths sits awkwardly with his claimed heart-rendering empathy for the thousands of ‘handsome’ Ukrainian young men needlessly dying on the front lines.

It all becomes reality-TV.

Trump threatens Iran with “bombing [the] likes of which they have never seen before” over an ultimatum that likely cannot be met. Simply put, this threat (which includes the possible use of nuclear weapons) is not given because Iran poses a threat to the U.S. It does not. But it is given as an option. A plan; a ‘thing’ placed calmly on the geo-political table and intended to spread fear. “Cities full of children, women, and the elderly to be killed: Not morally wrong. Not a war crime”.

No. Just the ‘reality’ that Trump takes the Iranian nuclear programme to be an existential threat to Israel. And that the U.S. is committed to using military force to eliminate existential threats to Israel.

This is the heart to Trump’s ultimatum. It owes to the fact that it is Israel – not America, and not the U.S. intelligence community – that views Iran as an existential threat. Professor Hudson, speaking with direct knowledge of the background policy (see here and here) says, “it’s NOT just that Israel as we know it – must be safe and secure and free from terrorism”. That’s Trump and his Team’s ‘line’; that’s the Israeli and its supporters narrative too. “But the mentality [behind it] is different”, Hudson says.

There are some 2-3 million Israelis who see themselves as destined to control all of what we now call the Middle East, the Levant, what some call West Asia – and others call “Greater Israel”. These Zionists believe that they are mandated by God to take this land – and that all who oppose them are Amalek. They believe the Amalek to be consumed with an overwhelming desire to kill Jews, and who therefore should be annihilated.

The Torah records the story of Amalek: Parshat Ki Teitzei, when the Torah states, machoh timcheh et zecher Amalek—that we must erase Amalek’s memory. “Every year we [Jews] are obligated to read – not how God will destroy Amalek – but how we should destroy Amalek”. (Though many Jews puzzle how to reconcile this mitzvah with their ingrained contrarian values of compassion and mercy).

This commandment in the Torah is in fact one of the key factors that lies at the root of Israel’s obsession with Iran. Israelis perceive Iran as an Amalek tribe plotting to kill Jews. No deal, no compromise therefore is possible. It is also, of course, about Iran’s strategic challenge (albeit secular) to the Israeli state.

And what has made the Trump ultimatum so pressing in Washington’s view – apart from the China-pivot considerations – was the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. That assassination marked a big shift in U.S. thinking, because, before that, we inhabited an era of careful calculation; incremental moves up an escalator ladder. What is understood now is that ‘we’re no longer playing chess’. There are no rules anymore.

Israel (Netanyahu) is going hell-for-leather on all fronts to mitigate the divisions and turmoil at home in Israel through igniting the Iranian front – even though this course might well threaten Israel’s destruction.

This latter prospect marks the reddest of ‘red lines’ to ingrained Deep State structures.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tehran rules out talks on US terms, says ‘Libya-style deal a dream’

Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2025

Iran has restated its refusal to hold direct talks with the United States over its nuclear program, instead demanding that all negotiations proceed through intermediaries. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed Tehran’s position on Sunday, saying that no discussions with Washington have occurred and none will take place without mediation.

“We have stated our position – we are in favor of the diplomatic path and negotiations, but via mediators. Of course, it should be emphasized that not a single round of such talks has been held yet,” Araghchi said in a statement posted on Telegram.

His comments came after US President Donald Trump threatened Iran with bombings if it refuses to accept his new ‘nuclear deal’. Araghchi firmly rejected the idea of Iran following the model imposed on Libya in 2003—when Libya abandoned its WMD program in exchange for sanctions relief, only to later be invaded and see its leader killed.

“The US can only dream” of such an outcome with Iran, he stated.

Araghchi’s reference to Libya alludes to the fate of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was captured and killed by NATO-backed rebel forces in 2011 after agreeing to disarm years earlier. Gaddafi, who had pushed for African unity and economic sovereignty through efforts like a gold-backed currency, was eliminated following a NATO airstrike on his convoy and extrajudicial execution by opposition forces. His death, seen by many as a betrayal of a disarmament deal, has deeply influenced how nations like Iran assess US diplomatic overtures under threat.

Regional Warning

Against this backdrop, Iran has also warned its neighbors—including Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and Bahrain—not to allow their airspace or territory to be used for any US military action.

“Such an act will have severe consequences for them,” a senior Iranian official said, confirming that Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has placed Iran’s armed forces on high alert.

The official also suggested that indirect talks could resume soon via Oman, a long-standing diplomatic channel, but stressed that progress will depend on Washington’s willingness to de-escalate. They warned that the process may be “rocky” and pointed to a narrow two-month window before potential Israeli military action or a reimposition of UN sanctions.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but the International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that enrichment has reached 60%—dangerously close to weapons-grade. Tehran has ruled out discussing its missile capabilities and continues to reject negotiations conducted under pressure or military threat.

IRGC commander Amirali Hajizadeh has warned that in the event of full-scale conflict, US military installations across the region will be treated as legitimate targets.

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Policy Reversal: Why Is the U.S. Softening Its Position on Iran?

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – April 5, 2025

In Recent Days, the Trump Administration—Known for Its Hardline Stance on Iran—Has Shown Unexpected Shifts in Rhetoric.

U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steven Whitcoff, who previously advocated for a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, now speaks of the need for “confidence-building” and “resolving disagreements.” This sharp turn in foreign policy strategy raises many questions: What exactly prompted Washington to change its approach? What factors influenced the decision to soften its stance? And most importantly—does the U.S. have a real plan of action, or is this just a temporary tactical maneuver?

An analysis of the situation suggests that the policy shift is tied to a combination of factors—from the failure of sanctions to the Trump administration’s domestic political calculations. Additionally, Iran’s response and that of the international community play a key role in determining how events will unfold.

The Failure of “Maximum Pressure”

In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expecting that harsh sanctions would force Iran to make concessions. The Trump administration believed economic strangulation would either lead to regime change in Tehran or its surrender on the nuclear issue. However, these calculations proved wrong.

Instead of backing down, Iran responded by escalating its nuclear activities. According to the IAEA, Tehran has significantly increased its stockpile of enriched uranium and begun developing more advanced centrifuges. Moreover, the country strengthened ties with Russia and China, finding alternative ways to bypass sanctions. As a result, the “maximum pressure” policy not only failed to achieve its goals but, from Washington’s perspective, worsened the situation by bringing Iran closer to developing nuclear weapons.

Now, Washington seems to have realized that isolating Iran hasn’t worked and is attempting to shift to diplomatic methods. The question, however, is whether it’s too late—Tehran, hardened by bitter experience, is unlikely to agree to new negotiations without serious guarantees.

Another reason for the policy shift may be domestic U.S. issues. Facing economic challenges and a lack of clear successes, President Trump urgently needs a foreign policy win that can be framed as a major achievement of his so-called “new approach.” A full-scale war with Iran is too risky—a scenario that could spell disaster for both the region and the U.S. itself. Thus, the administration is likely betting on a temporary agreement that can be marketed as a “diplomatic breakthrough.” However, this approach risks new problems—if the deal proves short-lived, it will further erode international trust in the U.S.

Internal Divisions in U.S. Leadership

The rhetorical shift also reflects deep divisions within the American leadership. While some officials, like Steven Whitcoff, advocate for negotiations, others—including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—continue to insist on Iran’s complete abandonment of its nuclear program. These contradictions indicate a lack of a unified strategy.

Part of the administration appears to recognize the futility of further pressure, while another faction remains committed to a hardline approach. This division makes any long-term U.S. strategy unstable—a change in administration or even a shift in Congressional power dynamics could undo any agreements reached. Such confusion weakens the effectiveness of U.S. policy and gives Iran additional leverage.

Iran’s Response: Why Tehran Doesn’t Trust the U.S.

Iranian leaders remain deeply skeptical of Washington’s new overtures. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly stated that “threats and bribes do not work on Iran.” The experience of the 2015 JCPOA showed that the U.S. could abandon the deal at any moment, even if Iran fully complied.

After Washington’s unilateral withdrawal, Tehran lost faith in American guarantees. Now, Iran’s leadership demands not only sanctions relief but also legally binding commitments to prevent the U.S. from reneging again.

The situation is further complicated by internal political struggles in Iran. Conservative factions, empowered after the JCPOA’s collapse, oppose any concessions to the West. Additionally, Iran has adapted to sanctions by finding alternative oil markets and deepening cooperation with China and Russia. This reduces the effectiveness of U.S. pressure and diminishes Tehran’s incentives to compromise.

Even Washington’s closest allies, like Israel, have expressed discontent with the policy shift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he distrusts new negotiations with Iran and views any concessions as dangerous.

European nations, however, have long called for renewed dialogue. Germany, France, and the UK—who remained in the JCPOA after the U.S. exit—hope for de-escalation. Yet their influence is limited, as key decisions are made in Washington and Tehran.

Currently, negotiations remain at an impasse. The U.S. offers dialogue but maintains sanctions, while Iran refuses concessions without guarantees. Experts believe Trump is attempting a “good cop, bad cop” tactic, similar to his approach with North Korea. However, unlike in 2015, Tehran is no longer willing to negotiate under pressure. Iranian leaders recognize that time is on their side—the longer the U.S. fails to achieve its goals, the weaker its position becomes.

A Way Out?

An exit from the deadlock—which the U.S. created in its relations with Iran—was discussed during recent trilateral talks between China, Russia, and Iran in Beijing. The meeting produced a comprehensive initiative to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, based on five principles:

  1. Peaceful Solutions Over Sanctions: All parties must reject coercive pressure and illegal restrictions, prioritizing dialogue. Conditions for renewed negotiations must be created while avoiding escalatory steps.
  2. Balancing Rights and Obligations: Iran must uphold its commitment against nuclear weapons development, while the international community recognizes its right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.
  3. Returning to the JCPOA as a Foundation: The initiative calls for renewed focus on the JCPOA, urging the U.S. to demonstrate goodwill and rejoin the process.
  4. Dialogue Over UN Pressure: Premature involvement of the UN Security Council would undermine trust and stall progress. Confrontational mechanisms would negate years of diplomacy.
  5. Gradual Steps and Mutual Compromises: Forceful methods are ineffective—only equal consultations can produce a compromise respecting all parties’ interests and global demands.

The softening of U.S. rhetoric is a clear sign that “maximum pressure” has failed. Yet without real concessions and guarantees, negotiations are unlikely to yield a breakthrough. Iran has learned to play the long game, leaving Washington with a choice: serious, equal-footed dialogue or further escalation with unpredictable consequences. For now, the situation remains in limbo, with neither side willing to make the first move.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), Expert on Arab World Affairs

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Iran Defies Trump’s Ultimatum and Threat of War

Glenn Diesen | April 3, 2025

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor, an analyst and an advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses Iran’s rejection of Trump’s ultimatum and the possible nuclear escalation.

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran can rely on its hydrocarbon resources for 100 years: NIOC

Press TV – March 30, 2025

The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has said that production from hydrocarbon resources in the country will continue for the next 100 years.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the NIOC detailed its performance in the calendar year that ended on March 20, saying that Iran’s hydrocarbon resources amount to the equivalent of more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, adding that some 340 billion barrels of those resources are available for extraction.

The statement said that Iran can rely on those resources for the next 100 years considering the current extraction rates and technologies.

The NIOC said oil and gas production in Iran had increased to record levels in the last calendar year, adding that the amount of natural gas delivered to the Iranian pipeline grid had reached an all-time high of 870 million cubic meters (mcm) in the past winter.

It said that total gas production in Iran had increased by an average of 36 mcm per day in the second half of the calendar year to late March to reach 1,106 mcm per day.

The company said that gas production from the Iranian side of South Pars, the world’s largest gas field shared with Qatar in the Persian Gulf, had reached 716 mcm per day.

The statement also elaborated on efforts to increase oil production from several oilfields in south and southwest Iran despite sanctions targeting the exports of crude oil from the country.

The NIOC said that Iran’s baseline oil production would increase by 250,000 barrels per day (bpd) to reach 2.189 million bpd in the near future thanks to $3 billion worth of investment provided by the Central Bank of Iran.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Iran presses the IAEA on Trump’s ‘bombing’ threat, reaffirms no nukes pursuit

IRNA – April 2, 2025

Tehran – The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must adopt a clear position regarding threats against Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tuesday, days after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to “bomb” Iran.

Araqchi was speaking on the phone with the secretary general of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi.

He emphasized that given the recurrence of such threats, the Islamic Republic will take every necessary measure to protect its nuclear program.

Grossi, for his part, said he would talk with other parties to create a suitable atmosphere to help resolve existing issues. He also asked to visit Iran, which Araqchi accepted.

Trump said on Sunday that he would order military strikes against Iran if Tehran did not strike a new deal with Washington on its nuclear program. “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said in an interview with NBC News.

Iran has warned to respond swiftly and decisively to any act of aggression on its soil.

Reacting to Trump’s threat, a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said that even though Iran doesn’t seek nuclear weapons, any strike on the country by the United States or Israel on that false pretext would force the country to develop atomic bombs for defensive purposes.

“If America or Israel bomb Iran under the nuclear pretext, Iran will be compelled to move toward producing an atomic bomb,” Ali Larijani said during a televised interview on Monday.

Araqchi, however, once again clarified Tehran’s long-standing position, which is based on a religious decree (fatwa) by Ayatollah Khamenei prohibiting the development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons, reaffirming that the country will never produce or acquire any atomic bombs under any circumstances.

He said in an X post on Tuesday that ten years after signing the Iran deal and seven years after the U.S. unilaterally walked away from it under Trump’s first term, “there is not ONE SHRED OF PROOF that Iran has violated this commitment.”

Meanwhile, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric was asked on Tuesday to comment on Trump’s threat, to which he said, “We urge everyone to avoid inflammatory rhetoric.”

“I think the UN Charter is very clear in encouraging Member States to settle all disputes through diplomatic means,” he said in response to the question asked by IRNA’s correspondent.

On March 12, Trump sent a letter to Iran via an emissary from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), requesting that negotiations be opened into a deal that he says would stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. This is while, in 2018, he pulled out of a multinational nuclear deal with Iran. On February 4, the U.S. president signed a presidential memorandum to restore a hostile policy from his first term of “maximum pressure” on the Islamic Republic.

Iran, which has relayed its response to the U.S. president’s letter via Oman, has ruled out direct negotiations with the United States as long as the “maximum pressure” policy and the military threats are in place.

“Diplomatic engagement worked in the past and can still work. BUT, it should be clear to all that there is—by definition—no such thing as a ‘military option’ let alone a ‘military solution,’” Araqchi said in his X post.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump: ‘Very Bad Things are Going to Happen.’ Netanyahu Wants the U.S. to Destroy Iran.

By Dennis J. Kucinich | April 1, 2025

In my article, “The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the U.S. Economy,” I reminded readers of how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been behind the push for America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Iran. I reviewed the severe economic consequences for the U.S. if it attacks Iran. Today, I cite the human health and atmospheric effects of a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. The resulting nuclear fallout would bring a catastrophe unprecedented in human history.

Last week, President Trump said “very bad things are going to happen” to Iran, if that nation’s leaders do not sign a new nuclear deal. The President is right. He can make very bad things can happen to Iran.

But Iran is not the only country to which “bad things” are going to happen if Iran’s nuclear research infrastructure is destroyed by the U.S., as is revealed by a careful study of the spread of radiation created by the promised bombings.

America has been Netanyahu’s pawn for decades. Will the wealth, lives and security of our nation be sacrificed yet further to an agenda which brings only debt to our nation and death to innocents abroad?

The return of Donald Trump to the White House for a second term has enabled Netanyahu’s right-wing party to accelerate the pulverization of Gaza, expand settlements and to repel the Houthis pro-Gaza attacks on Red Sea shipping.

Netanyahu viewed Trump’s first election in 2016 as a new opportunity to topple Iran’s leadership. Trump, in partnership with Netanyahu, withdrew the U.S. from a multi-lateral agreement which limited Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief.

An attack by B-2 bombers on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would destroy the targeted sites, and unleash radioactivity endangering the lives of tens of millions in Iran and hundreds of millions beyond. Due to radioactive drift, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also would be severely impacted.

In practical terms, given proximity to Iran, and the direction of the wind, high levels of radiation-induced illness, some fatal, and sharp increases in cancer and birth defects would occur. Radiation would contaminate and ruin food supplies, agricultural land, farm animals, and water resources hundreds and even thousands of miles from Iran.

The eastern regions of Turkey, northwestern India, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan would be exposed to moderate contamination. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Egypt’s Sinai could be affected, depending on the wind.

Israel has long fanned existential fears by conjuring the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, while being indemnified by the U.S. for its self-styled “defensive” aggression in Gaza, where at least 50,000 Gazans have been killed and over a million Palestinians driven from their homes.

While the widely publicized intent of President Trump to bomb Iran imperils Iran and neighboring countries, it also makes Israel vulnerable to a massive counterstrike from Iran and puts in the bullseye all U.S. troops in the region within 2,500 miles of Iran.

The attack B-2 bombers headed to Iran are designed to carry nuclear “bunker busters” as well as conventional 500 lb gravity bombs. The objective is to take down Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which includes nuclear reactors and research labs. Nukes bombing nukes equals massive radioactive fallout.

“There will be Bombing.”

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” Trump said in a telephone interview this past Sunday with NBC News. “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

Civics lesson: Official threats against another state are a violation of the UN Charter, Article Two, Section 4, which “prohibits the threat or use of force against …. any state.” Both Iran and the US signed and ratified that agreement nearly 80 years ago, in recognition of its organizing principle: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”.

It is a war crime to aggress against another country. Under the US Constitution, no president has the right to unilaterally take our nation to war, absent an imminent threat to the United States. The Constitutional Convention placed the war power in the hands of Congress. This was in contrast to the British Crown’s expansion of war for empire.

The litany of reasons not to attack Iran is eerily similar to the reasons America should not have attacked Iraq: Iran is not a threat to the United States. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran does not have the intention or the ability to attack the United States. That being the case, the opportunities for a false flag incitement are ripe.

Significantly, last week the U.S. Intelligence community, in its annual Global Threat Assessment, refuted Netanyahu’s oft-repeated claim about Iran building a nuclear weapon:

“We continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003”.

In the 16 years I spent in Congress, I was often one of the only members who rose to question the Bush Administration’s plans to attack Iran, time and again calling out the dangers of attacking nuclear research facilities and calling for diplomatic means to block Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.

The agreement, arrived on July 14, 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plain of Action (JCPOA). It took the U.S. China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK thirteen years to craft a workable agreement which limited Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade. The agreement was a landmark for international cooperation. It put the spectral genie of Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon back in the bottle.

That did not satisfy Netanyahu, however. He longed for the toppling of the Iran regime, and continued to hype existential fears among Israelis. Trump cancelled the JCPOA, at Netanyahu’s behest, setting in motion a series of events which may lead the US to attack Iran soon.

From Deal Breaker to Deal Maker?

Scott Ritter a former UN Weapons Inspector and Marine intelligence specialist provides a detailed account of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, in his book, entitled Deal Breaker.

The JCPOA which Trump took down had blocked Iran’s production of enriched uranium (processed to increase the percentage of uranium-235 (235U) at the Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities.

It blocked Iran’s development of weapons-grade plutonium and frustrated even covert attempts to produce fissile (capable of undergoing nuclear fission) materials used for nuclear weapons.

The President now is demanding Iran sign a new deal. He wants Iran to get rid of the weapon-making capability which he errantly enabled by cancelling the JCPOA.

Eight years after the cancellation of the JCPOA, President Trump is apparently demanding Iran voluntarily take down its nuclear infrastructure which provides nuclear power, nuclear research and yes, with no JCPOA, can, at this moment, enrich uranium to near–weapons grade.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has issued a fatwa (a religious ruling) against the use of nuclear weapons.

The new deal which the President is seeking, at best, could end up looking a lot like the JCPOA, and, at worst, puts him in the position of issuing a non-negotiable demand for Iran to voluntarily take down its nuclear infrastructure, or the US will do it militarily.

Iran has rejected direct negotiations with Washington under such circumstances. It has, however, maintained indirect communication with the U.S. through Oman as the President escalates the threat of a massive bombing attack.

B-2 bombers are in place, equipped with the most powerful weapons in America’s arsenal ready to be activated from Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, 2,400 miles southeast of Iran. The B-2 has the capacity to attack and return to Diego Garcia without refueling.

In someways this showdown with Iran was set in place on July 25, 2024, when Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress. In a spell-binding speech for which he received over 50 standing ovations, Netanyahu skillfully aligned Israel’s and the U.S. policy on Iran:

“If you remember one thing, one thing from this speech, remember this: Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory,” Mr. Netanyahu declared.

At this point, the measure of consequence needs to be assessed. The only difference between war games, preparing for war and actual war, is in the intent.

Israel intends to destroy Iran and needs the US to do it.

Joint US-Israeli Air Force war games have been held recently in preparation for an attack.

The U.S. has nineteen B-2 bombers. Each cost over $2 billion. Their unique flying wing design, with the plane wrapped in radar-absorbing materials help it avoid detection. The B-2s use sophisticated electronic countermeasures to jam or stymie opposition radar and missiles.

Iran is ill-equipped to defend against the B-2 bombers’ stealth warfare. At best the shortened detection range will limit Iran’s ability to lock onto the B-2 with surface-to-air missiles.

Each B-2 can carry sixteen, 2,400 lb., B83 thermo-nuclear gravity bombs, also known as nuclear bunker busters, which explode deep inside the earth. Each B83 bomb has the explosive capacity of 80 Hiroshimas which means each B-2 bomber is capable of delivering the destructive power of 1280 Hiroshimas.

Once the B83’s detonate they destroy underground structures and send shockwaves through rock. Earthquakes and massive ground displacement result, with radioactive debris being flung into the atmosphere.

There is a metaphysics at work here of bringing to oneself that which one fears. The United States is preparing to attack Iran because of Israel’s fear of Iran.

Trump: “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

The U.S. will first attack Iran’s underground missile cities at Khorramabad, and Panj Pellah, Bakhtaran, with nuclear bunker busters or Massive Ordnance Penetrators aimed at underground missile sites, to incapacitate Iran’s ability to retaliate.

The use of nuclear bunker busters will send nuclear debris into the immediate atmosphere, and it will be carried aloft by the wind.

Simultaneously, the U.S. will strike at the Fordow enrichment plant, buried deep in a mountain. A combination of 30,000 lb. Massive Ordnance Penetrators (GBU-57s) capable of burrowing 200 ft into the earth before exploding, and nuclear bunker busters, will be deployed, creating a multiplier factor in blast physics, collapsing tunnels and sending radioactive materials into the atmosphere and far beyond. Fordow is heavily fortified and may be able to withstand the initial attack.

The Natanz underground facility will be similarly struck, with radioactive matter breaking into the atmosphere.

The ground-level Bushehr Nuclear Power plant will be destroyed, its reactor vessel breached, the reactor core will meltdown, massive release of radioactive materials (cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, and plutonium) will go into the atmosphere, and, depending upon the wind, and the weather, radioactive plumes will drift over other countries.

Countless civilians will perish from radiation poisoning and severe burns. Birth defects will be present for generations to come. Nuclear explosion refugees will be created. Chernobyl-type effects will require people to leave their homes, never to return.

Tehran’s Research Reactor, Isfahan Nuclear Tech Center, Arak Heavy Water Reactor, Natanz Surface Facility and the Parchine Military Complex are ground level and surface level structures which will be targeted and destroyed, either by nuclear weapons or so-called conventional weapons.

Iran Can Still Hit Back

Iran’s underground missile system is widely distributed. Faced with imminent destruction, Iran, at the first sign of an attack, will simultaneously launch multiple rockets from many underground sites, a “shower of missiles” numbering in the thousands.

These deadly projectiles can change trajectories and targets while in flight, making the vaunted missile defense of Israel less effective. While Israel’s 2000 lb. bombs, the type dropped on Gaza, are more precise, the Shabab-3 has the potential of inflicting much more significant damage over a larger radius of Israeli cities.

U.S. Troops in Region will Pay

Tens of thousands of US troops, Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Space Force are stationed within reach of Iranian missiles. They are under no threat unless Iran is attacked.

Iran’s short-range missiles, Fateh-110 and Zolfagher, can reach Saudi Arabia. Iran’s medium-range ballistic missiles, the Shabab-3, Emad, Sejjil, and Ghadr can travel up to 1,550 miles (2,500 km), to Israel. Its intermediate range missiles are capable of striking 2,485 miles deep into eastern and central Europe,

It is not in the interests of the United States to attack Iran.

The United States is risking becoming the most hated nation on earth, using nuclear weapons again, bombing nuclear facilities, creating radioactive consequences for potentially dozens of nations and tens of millions of people born and unborn.

America has been Netanyahu’s pawn for decades. Will the wealth, lives and security of our nation be sacrificed yet further to an agenda which brings only debt to our nation and death to innocents abroad?

During his campaign, President Trump stated repeatedly that he aimed to have a strong military to avoid war. Military strength must be matched by diplomatic strength. He must come up with a deal that avoids a U.S. war with Iran, without a foreign leader’s self-interested meddling. “Very bad things” do not have to happen if good people prevail. If America nukes Iran, our nation will never escape the fallout.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia offers mediation of talks between Tehran, Washington: Ryabkov

Al Mayadeen | April 1, 2025

Russia warned of United States airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, condemning US President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Tehran unless a deal with Washington is reached.

“Threats are indeed being heard, ultimatums are also being heard,” Russia Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov told International Affairs in an interview published Tuesday, adding, “We consider such methods inappropriate, we condemn them, we consider them a way for (the US) to impose its own will on the Iranian side.”

Russia proposed mediation between Trump’s administration and Iran, following their strategic partnership deal earlier this year.

Ryabkov said that Trump’s threats to Iran only complicate the situation between the two countries, emphasizing that if the US administration follows up with its warnings and strikes Iranian nuclear facilities, the consequences could be catastrophic for the entire region.

“While there is still time and the ‘train has not left’, we need to redouble our efforts to try to reach an agreement on a reasonable basis. Russia is ready to offer its good services to Washington, Tehran, and everyone who is interested in this,” the deputy foreign minister stated.

Iran stands steadfast to US threats

Ali Larijani, a top advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, cautioned on March 31 that any US or Israeli strike targeting Iran’s nuclear sites would push Tehran to pursue nuclear weapons development.

He argued that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities would backfire against US interests, warning, “Under such circumstances, we would have no choice but to reconsider our stance and potentially seek nuclear arms as a deterrent.”

Larijani warned that any military strike on Iran would only strengthen domestic resolve to fast-track nuclear weapons development, adding that due to Iran’s preparedness, such an attack would only delay the nuclear program temporarily – by no more than two years.

On March 31, the leader of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, delivered a stern warning, asserting that any entity considering hostile actions toward Iran would be met with a severe and proportionate retaliation, while also stressing that efforts to provoke internal division would be decisively countered by the Iranian people, as they have shown in previous instances.

Admiral Alireza Tangsiri, the commander of the naval forces in Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), warned “foreign parties” against threatening Iranian interests, stating, “If foreigners attempt to attack us, pressure us, or endanger our interests, we will stand against them with full force.”

At the same time, he emphasized that “Iran does not seek war but will respond firmly to any aggression.”

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Iran Responds to Trump’s Threats: US Has 10 Bases and 50K Troops in Our Vicinity

Al-Manar | March 31, 2025

The director general for the Americas at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued an official warning to the United States Interests Section in Tehran to warn Washington against any hostile actions.

In the absence of the Swiss ambassador, Issa Kameli summoned the chargé d’affaires of the Swiss Embassy, which represents the U.S. in Tehran, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and conveyed Iran’s firm resolve to respond decisively and immediately to any threat.

The Swiss charge d’affaires was summoned on Monday over recent threats against Iran made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

During the meeting, Kameli condemned and rejected the inflammatory remarks, calling them violations of international law and the principles outlined in the United Nations Charter.

The Iranian official presented an official note warning against any malicious activity, emphasizing the Islamic Republic of Iran’s unwavering resolve to counteract any aggression.

The chargé d’affaires assured Kameli that the matter would be promptly relayed to the U.S. government.

Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh indicated that the United States has 10 bases and 50 thousand troops in our vicinity.

“Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stressed that Iran may never engage in direct talks with the US administration, adding that Washington received and reviewed Tehran’s response to Trump’s letter.

Trump has warned that he might order military strikes against Iran if Tehran fails to reach an agreement with Washington on its nuclear program. “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” Trump said in an interview with NBC News. However, he added that he could instead impose “secondary tariffs” on Iran if no deal is reached, as he did during his first term in office.

Earlier in the day, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei warned that if Washington commits any hostile act against Iran, “it will certainly receive a heavy blow in return.”

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran will admit students expelled from US as part of Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestine protests

Press TV – March 30, 2025

Iran’s academic officials have declared the Islamic Republic’s unwavering support for students and academics who have been targeted by the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters on university campuses.

Officials from Iran’s academic institutions said in a joint statement on Sunday that the country’s universities “take pride in extending their support” to students protesting “the crimes of the Zionist regime” in the US.

“The acts of global arrogance in suppressing justice-seeking students and expelling them from American universities after their peaceful protests against the atrocities committed by the Zionist regime against the oppressed people of Palestine have further unveiled the true nature of those who claim to advocate for human rights,” the statement read.

Iran’s universities, it said, are ready to accept students who are being expelled by US immigration officials for showing sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Iran’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR), in collaboration with the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences, will facilitate the admission of expelled students into Iranian universities.

President Donald Trump has begun following through on a threat to deport all non-citizen university activists with ties to the pro-Palestine protests, which rocked the US last spring, with students staging daily protests in college campuses across the country for weeks.

The crackdown intensified since US immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Kahlil, a graduate of Columbia University, on March 8. Kahlil, who is being held in an immigration detention center in Louisiana, faces deportation for his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who personally signed off on his arrest, said on Thursday that Washington has revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas.

“Maybe more than 300 at this point,” he said. “We do it every day, every time I find one of these lunatics.”

Trump officials have accused these students of being “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the US.

March 30, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The war over war with Iran has just begun

By Sina Toossi | Responsible Statecraft | March 28, 2025

The war drums are getting louder in Washington.

In recent weeks, many of the same neoconservative voices who pushed the U.S. into Iraq are calling for strikes on Iran. Groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are once again promoting confrontation, claiming there may never be a better time to act. But this is a dangerous illusion that risks derailing what Donald Trump himself says he wants: a deal, not another disastrous war in the Middle East.

A war with Iran wouldn’t just risk another endless conflict. It would blow up Trump’s broader agenda at home and abroad.

A major conflict would drain U.S. resources and attention, distracting from domestic priorities and weakening America’s leverage on every front: China, Russia, Europe, and trade. Europe could seize the moment to prolong support for the war in Ukraine and resist Trump’s push to reset transatlantic ties. Trade partners like Mexico, Canada, India, and others could take advantage of America’s preoccupation to extract lop-sided concessions. And a unilateral strike would likely fracture the international community.

Russia and China, despite their own misgivings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, would point to U.S. aggression as the real threat, undermining American credibility at the United Nations and beyond.

And the most dangerous consequence? A strike could backfire and push Iran to do exactly what Trump says he wants to prevent: build a bomb. Iran is already enriching uranium near weapons-grade. If it withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the last threads of international oversight would disappear. An attack would likely galvanize even more hardline elements in Iran and provide the political justification to sprint for a nuclear weapon.

Trump could go down in history, not as the president who solved the Iran crisis, but as the one under whose watch Iran finally became a nuclear weapons state. That’s not the legacy he wants, or one the country can afford.

Raising alarms, Trump recently declared, “Something will happen to Iran soon.” But he also made clear, “Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other.” These are not the words of a warmonger. They are the words of a negotiator, someone who still sees the value in diplomacy.

Trump is not alone. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, his foreign policy envoy Steven Witkoff offered a notably more restrained perspective on Iran than is typical from the foreign policy establishment. Witkoff emphasized pragmatism, verification, mutual respect, and, most importantly, avoiding conflict. His remarks reflected a grounded approach rooted in a clear understanding of both American interests and the region’s complex dynamics.

The problem is that many of the loudest voices shaping Iran policy — inside and outside the government — are actively working to sabotage any realistic path to diplomacy. They talk about wanting a “deal,” but what they’re actually demanding is Iran’s surrender: zero uranium enrichment, dismantling its nuclear program, cutting ties with all its regional allies, and fundamentally changing its foreign policy. No Iranian government — pragmatist or hardliner — could accept such terms. Even Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly elected president who ran on a platform of diplomacy and engagement, would have no political space to agree to that kind of ultimatum.

Let’s be clear: if you’re pushing for such maximalist demands under the guise of wanting a deal, you’re not working for peace. You’re laying the groundwork for war.

Iran is a complicated actor with a complicated history. But the lessons of the past decade are clear: when the U.S. engages Iran through diplomacy, it gets results. When it relies solely on pressure, it inches closer to conflict.

The point of pressure has always been to create leverage, not to impose costs for their own sake. That leverage now exists. The question is what to do with it.

The 2015 nuclear deal was far from perfect for any side, but it did succeed in placing tight constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and subjected it to unprecedented international inspections. The aim of withdrawing from that deal was to compel Iran to accept stronger terms. That hasn’t happened.

Instead, the result has been several years of Iranian nuclear expansion, regional instability, and growing alignment between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% — dangerously close to weapons-grade — and stockpiling far more than before. Meanwhile, the international consensus that once backed U.S. efforts has frayed.

Now is the time to cash in on current U.S. pressure. Not by continuing on an escalatory path that leads to war, but by using the leverage that’s been built to strike a better deal — one that delivers strong constraints, more transparency, and greater long-term security for the United States.

Against this backdrop, hawkish voices are once again pushing the illusion that striking Iran would be quick and effective. A recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) claims Israel’s alleged deep intelligence reach and risk tolerance make a “preventive strike” against Iran potentially “much more successful” than past American efforts, like when the U.S. attacked nuclear targets in Iraq in 1991 and 1993. But this dangerously downplays the risks. Even Trump’s allies are urging caution.

Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, rightly cautioned last October that “America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct” from Israel’s — and made clear that avoiding war with Iran is in the U.S. interest. He warned such a conflict would be “massively expensive” and a “huge distraction of resources.” The reality is that a strike might at best delay Iran’s program while likely sparking a regional war, endangering U.S. troops, and pushing Iran to weaponize.

Indeed, even the same WINEP report that touts the feasibility of a strike quietly acknowledges the scale of what it would entail: “an open-ended, multiyear campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, influence its nuclear proliferation calculus, and shape its political and military responses.” In other words, this wouldn’t be a quick, surgical strike; it would be the beginning of another endless war in the Middle East.

Such a conflict would also carry steep economic costs, from skyrocketing oil prices to instability across the Middle East. And it would almost certainly backfire politically: Americans are war-weary, and polls show overwhelming support for diplomacy over conflict.

What’s needed now is a pragmatic strategy to de-escalate and reengage — one that offers Iran credible incentives in exchange for verifiable nuclear limits but doesn’t require dismantling its entire program.

The Iranian leadership has shown a consistent pattern in its dealings with the United States: pressure is met with pressure, while concessions are met with reciprocal steps. History has made clear that what moves the needle is not ultimatums, but a formula grounded in mutual respect, trust-building, and incremental, verifiable actions. Witkoff’s recent interview signaled a welcome openness to serious diplomacy, but rhetoric alone is not enough. To resonate in Tehran, it must be paired with credible, calibrated actions.

Modest, realistic steps — such as allowing a limited release of Iran’s frozen assets for humanitarian purposes or reviving President Emmanuel Macron’s 2019 proposal for a credit line backed by future oil revenues — would not require lifting core U.S. sanctions. Yet they could offer enough tangible benefit to bring Iran to the table. These measures should be linked to parallel Iranian concessions, such as slowing the accumulation of highly enriched uranium and enhancing IAEA access.

Another option is a negotiated “pause:” a fixed-duration agreement where the U.S. freezes further escalation of sanctions and refrains from imposing new pressure, while Iran halts key elements of its nuclear expansion. This mutual freeze could serve as a time-bound window for more comprehensive talks — buying time, lowering tensions, and creating space for diplomacy to succeed.

Critics will claim this approach “rewards bad behavior.” But the real question isn’t about rewarding anyone, it’s about results. What actually reduces the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon or dragging the U.S. into another endless war? The record speaks for itself: pressure detached from feasible diplomatic outcomes hasn’t delivered results. In fact, pressure for its own sake has backfired — driving Iran’s nuclear program forward and repeatedly bringing the U.S. to the brink of conflict.

Some will say Iran cannot be trusted. That’s precisely why inspections and verification are essential. When a deal was in place, international inspectors had access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the program was significantly constrained. Military strikes, by contrast, would likely end all transparency and push Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, eliminating the last tools for monitoring and oversight.

There’s no perfect deal. But the smart play is a deal that contains Iran’s nuclear program, avoids a war, and keeps the U.S. in the driver’s seat. That should be the goal of any serious policy, not wishful thinking or ideological crusades.

President Trump has always seen himself as a dealmaker. Now’s the moment to make one that matters. He should empower voices in his camp — like Steven Witkoff — who understand that diplomacy isn’t weakness, it’s strategy. Rejecting the tired playbook of regime change and endless escalation would show real leadership.

Sina Toossi is a non-resident fellow at the Center for International Politics. Previously he was senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, and a research specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran urges EU to address Israel’s genocide, aggression instead of leveling ‘hypocritical’ claims

Press TV – March 27, 2025

Iran says the European Union should address the Israeli regime’s genocide and aggression against the countries in the region instead of leveling “hypocritical” claims against Tehran.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remark on Thursday in reaction to the latest allegation by European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who on Monday claimed Iran posed a threat to global stability and said Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Kallas made the remarks during a press conference in al-Quds with Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar.

She also accused Iran of supporting Russia in the war with Ukraine.

Baghaei condemned the EU’s double standard policies and said, “If Kallas is truly concerned about stability and security in the region, she should address the [Israeli] regime’s genocide in Gaza and its repeated acts of aggression against Lebanon and Syria as well as the military occupation of these two countries’ territories.”

He added that such baseless statements, illogical remarks and hypocritical claims against Iran lack credibility.

Unlike her predecessors, who tried a bit to consider the principles of international law in expressing the EU’s positions, Kallas “speaks recklessly”, the Iranian spokesperson emphasized, warning that even if the EU foreign policy chief’s remarks are rooted in her lack of experience, they would further undermine Europe’s credibility in the eyes of any impartial observer.

Iran has repeatedly rejected accusations that it has supplied weapons to Russia for direct use in the war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia has repeatedly warned that a flow of Western weapons to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict.

Tehran has also stressed on numerous occasions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and has put its civilian nuclear program under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency which has verified its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Tehran is a signatory.

The allegations against Iran come as Israel is believed to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in West Asia.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »