Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 28, 2026

On Friday, Israel and the Lebanese government signed a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that essentially gives Lebanese sovereignty away to Israel and destroys the MoU with Iran.

The End Of Lebanese Sovereignty

The deal, as Benjamin Netanyahu boasted, is “a historic achievement for Israel” because it allows Israel to hold, “a security zone in Lebanon for as long as is needed for Israeli security”, (ie continue the occupation of South Lebanon).

Israel Channel 12 reported that , “The Lebanese government requested from Washington not to publish the secret security annex within the framework agreement with ‘Israel’” which “stipulates a clear commitment from both parties that any step will not be implemented according to timelines but according to conditions” and that “The framework agreement stipulates freedom of operation inside the ‘Blue Line’ against immediate and emerging threats”.

Furthermore, Israeli media reports that within the security annex to the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement, “Israel does not only have to confirm the pilot locations – the IDF will also enter the areas it withdrew from to verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground.”

In other words, according to the deal, Israel is allowed to occupy areas of South Lebanon with no timetable to withdraw, and is able to enter areas of Lebanon to “verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground”.

As the analysist Elijah J. Magnier noted , under the agreement, “Israel keeps the power to decide when it feels secure enough to withdraw, the United States presents itself as mediator while acting as Israel’s strategic protector, and Lebanon is asked to implement security obligations that its own political and social reality may not allow.”

He added, “The most dangerous feature is the absence of a clear timetable for full Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will remain in southern Lebanon, in its security or buffer zones, until Hezbollah disarms and until Israel judges that the threat to its citizens has been removed. This makes Israel not merely a party to the agreement, but the judge of Lebanese compliance. It gives Israel the authority to decide whether Hezbollah has been sufficiently disarmed, whether the Lebanese army has done enough, whether the threat has disappeared, and therefore whether Israel should withdraw. That is not sovereignty. It is conditional sovereignty under Israeli review.”

Furthermore, as Lebanese journalist Rania Khalek reported , within the published deal , “Point 2 stipulates that Israeli withdrawal is contingent on the Lebanese Army first disarming Hezbollah, meaning civil war. This flips international law on its head. Israel’s occupation is illegal whether Hezbollah exists or not. The agreement states: ‘the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the IDF to progressively redeploy out of Lebanese territory.’ By agreeing to disarm Hezbollah first, with the markers for ‘verified disarmament’ yet to be determined by the U.S., the Lebanese government has cemented the occupation of the south.”.

An anchor on the Israeli channel 13 boasted, “It seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon towards civil war. Maybe it’s not so bad for us. Let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah”.

Furthermore, Rania Khalek noted, “Point 13 demonstrates shocking incompetence as it gives up Lebanon’s right to ‘hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.’ That means the Lebanese government agreed to forfeit using the law against Israel for the endless list of war crimes they’ve committed against Lebanon. It’s wild that this is coming from a government whose Prime Minister was a judge on the International Court of Justice and presided over South Africa’s case on the genocide in Gaza.”

The End Of The MoU

Aside from giving up Lebanese Sovereignty to Israel and the United States, it destroys the U.S.-signed MoU with Iran, which includes an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Point one of the MoU reads , “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on 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, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

But as Elijah J. Magnier noted, “The Washington framework effectively empties paragraph 1 of the US-Iran MOU of its meaning. That paragraph required an end to the war, respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The new framework replaces that obligation with a conditional mechanism: Israel withdraws only when it decides that Hezbollah has been disarmed and the threat has disappeared. In other words, Netanyahu has turned an Israeli duty to withdraw into a Lebanese obligation to prove itself under Israeli supervision.”

Iran has stayed strong in stating that an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is a red line in the future of the MoU.

Iran Press TV reports that during a call between Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said, “Our goal is to end the war in Lebanon, [help] return of refugees to their homes, end the occupation and [secure] withdrawal of the Zionist regime from Lebanese territory” and “reiterated Iran’s seriousness in pursuing the issue.”

According to Press TV, both speakers of parliament agreed that the Israel/Lebanon deal was in violation of the MoU. The report noted:

The Lebanese parliament speaker warned that the Zionist enemy seeks to circumvent the issue related to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Islamabad MoU through alternative means.

Berri described the Washington-brokered agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli regime as a conspiracy and sedition.

The Iranian and Lebanese parliament speakers emphasized the need for an early meeting of the deconfliction unit to help oversee implementation of the Islamabad-brokered MoU and end the war in Lebanon.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has similarly reiterated that an unconditional Israel withdrawal from South Lebanon is crucial to the future of the MoU.

Press TV reported, “He reiterated Iran’s longstanding position on Lebanon’s sovereignty, saying the Islamic Republic considers the protection of Lebanon’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, along with safeguarding the dignity and security of all Lebanese citizens, to be a fundamental prerequisite for any sustainable agreement aimed at ending the war and Israel’s military presence in the country.”

It added:

He also emphasized that Tehran had placed an end to Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon alongside the termination of hostilities against Iran as one of its principal demands and has consistently insisted on the implementation of those commitments.

The Iranian spokesman further stated that the full implementation of the first provision of the memorandum—which calls for ending Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Lebanese territories—is essential for reaching a final and lasting agreement capable of restoring stability to the region.

Referring to the United States’ explicit commitment under the first provision of the June 18 memorandum, Baghaei urged Washington to take all necessary measures to compel Israel to halt all acts of aggression and military offensives across Lebanese territory.

He also called for the prompt establishment of a timetable for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from the occupied areas of Lebanon, saying that such a step is necessary for the successful implementation of the agreement and the achievement of durable peace and security.

The remarks came after Israel and Lebanon signed a 14-point framework agreement in Washington aimed at ending hostilities and addressing long-standing security issues along their shared border.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran

BACK TO BATTLE: Iran, US, Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah /Lt Col Daniel Davis

Full interview:

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 27, 2026

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on BACK TO BATTLE: Iran, US, Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah /Lt Col Daniel Davis

With Iran and the US Exchanging Blows in the Persian Gulf, the MoU’s Survival Is in Doubt

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 27, 2026

Last I heard the US and Iran are supposed to meet in Switzerland starting Sunday, 28 June, to continue negotiations over the MoU. However, today’s exchange of missiles and drones in the Strait of Hormuz may have put a nail in the coffin of the MoU.

Today’s escalation was the most serious exchange since the June 17 MOU signing and represents a clear breach of the first paragraph of the MoU by the United States:

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on 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, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

There was nothing in the MoU that prevented Iran from firing on a ship that ignored the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) protocols. Under the PGSA system, shipowners receive verifiable guidance and can apply for transit permits directly through the PGSA’s formal process, creating a centralised mechanism for coordinating transit through the strait with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Ever Lovely tried to circumvent the PGSA by traveling along the Omani corridor. Iran fired on it, which resulted in the US attacking Iranian positions in the Strait… a clear violation of the MoU.

The situation escalated on Saturday. Here is the sequence as it developed.

The triggering incident — 4:30 AM ET

Iran launched a one-way attack drone that hit M/T Kiku this morning at 4:30 a.m. ET. The Panama-flagged tanker attempted to use the Omani route without notifying the IRGC in accordance with the PSAG protocol. It was carrying more than two million barrels of Qatari crude oil, and was headed to the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.

Second vessel struck

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre also reported another attack on a different commercial vessel Saturday, close to the coast of Oman. The vessel sustained damage to its bridge. All crew were reported safe and no environmental damage had been reported. The incident was reported at around 11:30 AM local time.

Iran strikes Bahrain

Following the second attempt by a commercial vessel to ignore the PGSA protocols, Iran launched a number of drones at the former Headquarter of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry called it “a flagrant violation of its sovereignty, a flagrant threat to the security of citizens and residents, and a blatant breach of international norms.” Egypt and Kuwait swiftly condemned the attack. Saudi Arabia and Qatar also later condemned the drone strikes by Iran.

US retaliatory strikes — second wave

Late Friday night, and continuing into the early hours of Saturday, the US Central Command launched a second wave of retaliatory strikes on Iran, saying it attacked multiple targets in Iran at President Donald Trump’s direction. CENTCOM said US military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities. This was notably broader than Friday’s strikes, which had focused on missile and drone storage and coastal radar. Adding “minelayer capabilities” to the target set is a significant escalation in scope.

Trump, in another violation of the first paragraph of the MoU, said in a Truth Social post Saturday evening that US aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites “for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN!” The president threatened that if Iran doesn’t “learn,” the US “will be forced to militarily complete the job that we successfully started” and that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.”

The strategic logic on each side is now fully exposed. Iran frames every ship using the Oman route as a “violating vessel” and every US strike as a ceasefire breach — positioning its own attacks as defensive enforcement. The US frames Iran’s drone attacks on commercial shipping as ceasefire violations that require retaliation. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of Iran’s parliamentary national security commission, wrote that “the failed US President has shown he has no commitment to the principles of negotiation or a ceasefire” and that “this reckless violation of the ceasefire will, as always, lead to retreat and regret on their part.”

The IRGC released the following statement early on the 28th:

‘Dear noble people of the Islamic Iran: Your brave sons in the Naval and Aerospace Forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, during a joint missile and drone operation at 02:00-03:00 AM, targeted eight important U.S. targets, including Ali Al-Salem Airbase in Kuwait and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain.

The aggressor enemy, whose betrayal and violation of treaties are part of its nature, attacked early this morning five coastal sites in Iran under the pretext of confronting the IRGC Navy in response to seizing a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the Islamabad MoU, regarding traffic arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz with the Islamic Republic, from now on, ships that violate Iran’s instructions will be confronted with a greater force than before.

Any potential new aggression by the enemy for any reason, even if it is similar to last night’s attacks on unimportant targets, will have a devastating response.

The enemy must know that violating the ceasefire is contrary to Paragraph 1 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding and will lead to a complete halt in negotiations.’

Iran launched a significant combination of missile and drone strikes on the airbases in Kuwait and Bahrain. As I write this, the US has not responded. The ball is now in the court of Donald Trump… Will the US continue to encourage ships to circumvent the Iranian PGSA protocol or will it stand down? If the decision is the former then the MoU is finished and the likelihood of renewed US attacks on Iran is high. If it is the latter then the MoU, although on life support, may be salvaged. Let’s see what Sunday brings.

Video interviews

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on With Iran and the US Exchanging Blows in the Persian Gulf, the MoU’s Survival Is in Doubt

When an Ancient Spice Puts Modern Psychiatry to Shame

How saffron challenges the antidepressants, the OCD drugs, and the stimulants — on efficacy, safety, accessibility, and price.

By Sayer Ji | June 25, 2026

For three thousand years, Crocus sativus — saffron — has been threaded into the food, ritual, and medicine of Persia, India, and the Mediterranean. What is new is not the plant. What is new is the clinical record: a growing body of randomized, controlled research showing that saffron can perform comparably to several conventional psychiatric medications for depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and ADHD — often with fewer adverse effects (GreenMedInfo overview; a 2024 systematic review).

This is not a claim that pharmaceuticals never help (indeed, the active placebo effect alone is to generate a perceived positive effect in the majority of treatments). It is something more uncomfortable: strong evidence that the dominant drug-centered model has quietly ignored a lower-risk botanical option with a far older record of human use — and called it folklore while doing so.

“If a patented molecule matched Prozac, fluvoxamine, or Ritalin with fewer side effects, it would be called a breakthrough. Because saffron is an ancient spice, it is treated like a footnote.”

It should also be noted that the adverse effects of psychiatric medications have been downplayed, especially their connection to violent episodes. We have explored this problem in greater depth in the article below.

The Serotonin Wars: Why 2025 Marks a Turning Point in the SSRI Violence Debate

I. Older Than Memory: The Spice at the First Chapter of Medicine

The truth is that we say three thousand years out of habit. The origin of saffron is far stranger, and far older. Pigments derived from saffron have been identified in cave paintings in what is now northwest Iran, dated to roughly fifty thousand years ago — meaning the human bond with this flower predates agriculture, predates writing, predates nearly everything we call civilization (documented at GreenMedInfo). The relationship is, as nearly as we can tell, as old as our species’ capacity for wonder.

By the Bronze Age the flower had become sacred. On the Aegean island of Thera, frescoes painted some 3,500 years ago show a goddess enthroned above attendants gathering saffron — presiding, the imagery suggests, over both the harvest and the medicinal use of the spice. When researchers finally decoded the scene, The New York Times reported that they had effectively rewritten the first chapter in the history of medicine (Honan, The New York Times, 2004). Long before the pharmacy, there was the crocus — and a goddess watching over it.

And it has never surrendered its mystery cheaply. Each Crocus sativus bloom offers only three crimson threads, and it takes roughly one hundred and fifty flowers to yield a single gram — every stigma drawn by hand, the plant having refused mechanization for the whole of its history. Ounce for ounce it has long rivaled gold. The world calls it red gold, and not as flattery.

The deeper mystery is biochemical. A single thread carries more than 150 aromatic compounds and acts on more than fifty biological pathways in the body — a symphony so layered that its medicinal power remains, in a real sense, refractory to the reductionist gaze of modern pharmacology. This is the paradox the rest of this essay lives inside: a medicine humanity has trusted since the Ice Age, whose biochemistry we are only now learning to read — and which, read at last, turns out to stand toe to toe with the patented drugs of the present day.

I. The Promise Psychiatry Keeps Failing to Keep

The public was sold a simple story: depression is a chemical imbalance (e.g. serotonin deficiency), OCD requires heavy serotonergic correction, and ADHD needs stimulants to normalize performance. But real-world outcomes are often mixed. Incomplete response, relapse, dose escalation, withdrawal difficulty, sexual side effects, sleep disruption, appetite suppression, and emotional blunting are all widely documented in the literature (depression meta-analysis; adult ADHD adjunctive trial).

This does not mean medication has no role, especially in emergency medicine. It means the standard model has often demanded a punishing trade: partial symptom control in exchange for physiological, emotional, and financial costs that patients are expected to normalize.

II. Saffron for Depression: The Ancient Spice That Stood Up to Antidepressants

Clinical trials and pooled analyses suggest saffron is significantly better than placebo for mild to moderate depression and may be comparable to standard antidepressants in symptom reduction (meta-analysis). GreenMedInfo’s summary of six saffron studies emphasizes trials in which saffron matched or exceeded common antidepressants while maintaining a cleaner tolerability profile (GreenMedInfo).

In one line of research, saffron at around 30 mg per day was comparable to fluoxetine (aka Prozac) for major depressive disorder over several weeks — similar improvement on standard depression scales, fewer problematic adverse effects in the study populations.

GreenMedInfo also highlights a postpartum depression study in which saffron outperformed escitalopram on response and remission measures — underscoring that this is not merely an adjunctive wellness story, but a direct challenge to antidepressant assumptions.

“Saffron does not merely suppress symptoms. The broader literature suggests it may support a healthier terrain: oxidative balance, neuroprotection, and inflammatory regulation.”

III. OCD: Where Saffron Matched a Front-Line Pharmaceutical

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is usually treated with SSRIs at substantial doses. Yet a randomized, double-blind study found saffron comparable to fluvoxamine in mild to moderate OCD, using standard symptom scoring over eight weeks (randomized clinical trial).

The significance is not only clinical parity, but the implication that a botanical intervention may achieve similar benefit without extending the same burden of side effects.

That matters because OCD patients are often told they must accept a harsh medication profile as the cost of functioning. Saffron’s performance here suggests the “no alternative” framing is far weaker than many patients have been led to believe.

IV. ADHD: A Challenge to the Stimulant Monopoly

Several studies and reviews suggest saffron may improve ADHD symptoms in children and adults, either alone or as an adjunct, with an acceptable safety profile (systematic review).

A pediatric trial found saffron performed comparably to methylphenidate — the molecule sold as Ritalin — for core ADHD symptoms over six weeks (pediatric trial).

An adult adjunctive randomized trial also reported benefits when saffron was added to existing treatment, suggesting value even within conventional care rather than only outside it (randomized trial).

This should force a bigger question: why is a controlled-substance framework treated as normal first-line thinking when a non-patented botanical with human-trial support has been relegated to the margins?

“When a flower can compete with a stimulant, the problem is no longer lack of evidence. The problem is what the system is willing to see.”

V. Why Saffron May Work Differently

The broader neuropsychiatric literature points to multiple active constituents in saffron — including crocin and safranal — with effects on serotonin, dopamine, oxidative stress, inflammation, and neuroprotection (mechanistic review; Frontiers review).

This multi-target profile may help explain why saffron appears to improve mood and attention without reproducing the full burden of conventional drug toxicity.

Unlike a single-target pharmaceutical narrative, saffron appears to work more like a systems-level intervention. That does not make it magical. It makes it biologically plausible in a way reductionist psychiatry often is not.

VI. Safety, Accessibility, and Price

One of the strongest arguments for saffron is not only efficacy but proportionality. At studied doses, saffron has generally shown good tolerability across trials — especially relative to medications associated with sexual dysfunction, insomnia, appetite suppression, cardiovascular concerns, or difficult discontinuation syndromes (depression meta-analysis; 2024 systematic review).

It is also accessible. Standardized saffron extracts are widely available without a prescription, and although high-quality saffron is not cheap by weight, the clinically studied extract doses are small enough that monthly use may compare favorably with branded psychiatric medications — and with the downstream cost of managing their side effects.

This does not prove saffron is always cheaper in every market. But it strengthens the case that a lower-tech option may deliver better value with less harm.

VII. A Balanced Position on Medication

Some people benefit meaningfully from antidepressants, from SSRIs for OCD, or from stimulant medications for ADHD. Abrupt discontinuation can be dangerous, and saffron should not be presented as a simplistic replacement for every patient in every context.

But balance cuts both ways. A fair reading of the literature no longer allows the claim that pharmaceuticals are the only serious evidence-based option. Saffron now belongs in the main conversation: as a first consideration in some mild to moderate cases, as an adjunct in others, and as a serious object of informed discussion between patients and clinicians.

VIII. The Real Scandal

The real scandal is not that saffron works. The scandal is that patients have been taught to regard an ancient, clinically validated spice as quaint — while accepting a cascade of pharmaceutical harms as modern medicine.

A model built on failed promises deserves scrutiny. A medicine with deep cultural roots, growing scientific support, broad accessibility, and a gentler risk profile deserves a place at the center of the discussion.

If the psychiatric model were judged by the standards imposed on natural medicine, it would have to explain far more than saffron ever did.

To learn more about saffron, visit the GreenMedInfo.com database on the subject.

For more information on natural approaches to depression, OCD, and ADHD, explore the over 10,000 topics on GreenMedInfo.com, and consider becoming a member to deepen your toolset and knowledge-base and support the health and growth of the project here.

IX. The Benevolent Superfluity: Why a Flower Heals

Chemistry tells us how saffron works. It does not tell us why a flower, of all things, should be the one to outperform the molecules built in the lab. For that we have to go underneath pharmacology — to the strangest fact about the plant we have been discussing: that before it is a medicine, it is a flower, and the flower is the most extravagant, least necessary, most beautiful gesture the living world makes.

A flower feeds nothing on its own. It shelters no one. By the cold logic of survival it is extravagant waste — energy poured into color, scent, symmetry, and form when sturdier roots would have been the rational investment. And yet every human culture on every continent has tended flowers for at least five thousand years, with, as one Rutgers study dryly noted, no known reward for this costly behavior. When the researchers measured what a flower actually does to a person, the result was without precedent in the literature of emotion: a gift of flowers produced the involuntary Duchenne smile — the true smile, the one that cannot be faked — in one hundred percent of recipients. No gift of candy or money had ever reached that number. In the elderly it lifted mood and sharpened memory; in a crowded elevator a single bloom dissolved the reflex of stranger-avoidance and made people speak (Haviland-Jones et al., Evolutionary Psychology, 2005).

I have argued elsewhere that this is no accident of neural wiring, but a disclosure about the nature of reality itself — what I have called the benevolent superfluity of the universe (A Benevolent Superfluity). The cosmos did not stop at hydrogen, or carbon, or the first living cell. It kept going, overshooting bare function and landing in beauty — the spiral of the nautilus, the lattice of the honeycomb, the five-fold symmetry of the wild rose. Beauty, in this reading, is not decoration laid over a grey and functional world. Beauty is the structure of reality expressing itself. The flower is that structure made flesh — made petal, made scent, made color. The superfluous turns out to be the sacred, and the sacred turns out to be exactly what the body recognizes in an instant, before thought, with a yes.

Now hold saffron against that backdrop. If the flower is the universe’s gratuitous beauty made incarnate, saffron is that gesture brought to its most concentrated pitch: the crimson heart of the crocus, three threads to a bloom, a hundred and fifty flowers spent for a single gram, more than a hundred and fifty aromatic compounds folded into each thread. It is the flower distilled to its most lavish and most superfluous expression — and it carries, in that concentration, the same healing ontology the Duchenne study caught on film.

This is why the contest with the synthetic drug was never quite fair to the drug. A laboratory molecule is a stranger to the body — a foreign key for which the body has no lock, which it must labor to detoxify, paying the tax in the gut, the liver, the nervous system. Saffron is not a stranger. It is kin — the flower, the oldest object of human tenderness, a form the body has been answering with a yes since before we had language for it. The drug subtracts as it acts. The flower, even as medicine, adds — because it is continuous with the beauty that makes a nervous system want to go on living at all. That continuity is not a metaphor laid over the pharmacology. It is the ground the pharmacology stands on.

A note on practice

This essay is a reading of what the clinical literature reveals, not medical advice. Do not stop a prescribed antidepressant, SSRI, or stimulant abruptly — discontinuation of these drugs can be dangerous, and some require careful, supervised tapering. If you are looking for support in withdrawing from psychiatric medicines, consult the Inner Compass initiative. Saffron is not a blanket substitute for every patient in every situation, and it is not free of interactions: it can have additive effects with serotonergic medications and acts on the same mood-regulating pathways, so it warrants the same respect as any active compound. Pregnancy, bipolar disorder, and combination with prescription psychiatric drugs all call for a knowledgeable practitioner’s oversight. Honor the power of this plant by respecting it — and make these decisions with a clinician who will actually read the evidence with you.

Sources & further reading

Saffron for depression

Saffron for OCD

Saffron for ADHD

How saffron works — constituents, mechanisms, neuroprotection

Overviews & reviews

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Comments Off on When an Ancient Spice Puts Modern Psychiatry to Shame

Israeli occupation forces advance in southern Lebanese towns after truce deal with Beirut

Press TV – June 27, 2026 

Israeli forces have carried out new attacks on several towns in southern Lebanon, in a new escalation immediately after a US-brokered peace agreement was reached between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

Israeli occupation forces advanced toward the outskirts of the southern Lebanese town of Kfar Shuba under the cover of heavy machine-gun fire on Saturday, according to local reports.

Earlier, Israeli forces detonated a stun grenade near the town of Kfar Tebnit, causing alarm among residents.

The occupying regime’s warplanes also struck a location in the border town of Markaba overnight, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA).

The attacks follow an announcement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying a 14-point agreement had been reached between Lebanon and Israel.

Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, welcomed the agreement, claiming that under its terms, “Hezbollah is out.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also praised the deal, describing it as a major achievement and a significant step toward advancing Israel’s objectives in Lebanon.

Netanyahu further stated that Israel would not allow Lebanese residents to return to areas within the so-called security belt under Israeli control and insisted that Israeli forces would remain in the occupied parts of southern Lebanon.

Lebanese lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah strongly criticized the framework, warning that Lebanese authorities would not be able to implement it without dragging the country toward “civil war.”

Since 2 March, when Israel launched its latest round of aggression against Lebanon, at least 3,600 people have been killed and more than 11,000 wounded, according to Lebanese authorities.

In response, the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has continued military operations against Israeli forces, saying resistance remains necessary as long as attacks and occupation persist.

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by Iran and the United States in June, includes provisions calling for an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and respect for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Comments Off on Israeli occupation forces advance in southern Lebanese towns after truce deal with Beirut

Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

Mario Nawfal | June 26, 2026

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy said it targeted US military sites across the region in response to American aggression against Iran’s coastline, warning that any further attacks would prompt a significantly broader retaliation.

In a statement, the IRGC said the strikes came after the United States allegedly carried out air assuaults against Iran’s coastal areas under the pretext of responding to incidents involving navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

IRGC cites Strait of Hormuz and ceasefire commitments

The IRGC stressed that Washington violated its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arguing that Article 5 requires coordination with Iran on maritime monitoring and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The statement also linked the latest developments to continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.

Warning of wider retaliation

The IRGC said navy had delivered an “appropriate response” by targeting US military sites and warned that any repeat of American attacks would be met with a much broader military response.

The force stressed that it remains prepared to respond to future actions targeting Iranian territory or interests.

Earlier, US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it launched attacks on Iranian military targets after accusing Tehran of attacking a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while Iranian media reported explosions near the southern port city of Sirik following warning fire directed at vessels in the strategic waterway.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Cradle | June 26, 2026

An analysis of 153 public opinion surveys across seven major wars has concluded that the US-Israeli war against Iran is the most unpopular conflict in US history, surpassing the Vietnam War’s previous record, Responsible Statecraft (RS) reported on 26 June.

The report indicates that public support for the conflict has plummeted to a net negative 32 percent, dropping below the previous historical low of negative 31 percent recorded during the Vietnam War.

This finding directly contradicts testimony by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed during an April Senate hearing that the conflict maintained the support of the US public.

The analysis highlights three unprecedented ways that the war on Iran broke historical records in terms of unpopularity.

The first is that the war began with a net negative support from the very start, with the war launching with negative 13 percent public support.

The second is that the war has generated historic disapproval, currently holding the lowest level of public support of any major war in US history.

Finally, the war was defined by constant opposition throughout, making it the first where opponents outnumbered supporters for the entire duration of the fighting.

Researchers noted a significant “support gap” in the data, which utilized historical Gallup polls and recent Economist/YouGov surveys.

While 67 percent of Republicans polled expressed general support for the war, 54 percent of that same group called for a deal to end the war as quickly as possible.

Among the general US public, net support for prolonging the war rather than ending it immediately stood at negative 52 percent.

A recent Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll published on 24 June revealed that 59 percent of US adults back the agreement to end the war on Iran, while only 24 percent opposed it.

Respondents of the survey showed a deep skepticism about the outcomes of the war, with only 18 percent saying that the US has achieved its stated goals.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on 23 June revealed that only 24 percent of US citizens believed the war with Iran was worth its costs, while 50 percent said the war was not worth it.

This widespread disapproval has driven US President Trump’s approval rating to around 34 percent, marking an all-time low for his second term.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2026

The unintended consequences of Trump’s Iran Deal are too many to list. Chief among them is that Trump’s own buffoonery has injected cash and power into the regime in Iran that it could only have previously dreamt of. But the “unconditional surrender” deal has also probably destroyed the petrodollar – leading, most likely, to a faster demise of the US as what was once called a “superpower”, or even sometimes the superpower. Trump’s idiotic outburst of “unconditional surrender” is, of course, the greatest irony of the entire fiasco, given that it is Trump who is on his knees and has given Iran so much simply to open the Straits of Hormuz, simply to bring down the global price of oil.

Yet what happens now in the region, both to Israel and the GCC countries? For Israel, many leading commentators like Alistair Crooke claim that its people are in a state of shock and that it will take some time before they wake up after the party the night before and realise that things got a little out of hand and that a certain process of cleaning up and repair needs to take place. Crooke and others even go further and believe that Israel can no longer continue to indulge itself in the delusional notion of ’Greater Israel’ – i.e. having regional ambitions of hegemony beyond its borders – and needs to recalibrate its goals, starting with the admission that it is not winning its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a general consensus among analysts that most Israelis are in a state of shock about how the war in Iran was lost, how America itself didn’t and couldn’t deliver on its military promises, and how even the IDF is no match for Hezbollah. This will take some time for them to sink in – that Israel has simply overstretched itself both politically and militarily, and that the reality is that it is in a deep hole and perhaps a solution might be to stop digging.

But a period of sombreness and solace is hardly what Netanyahu has in mind, and it is likely now that he will become a silent enemy of Trump, who needs him to stop fighting in Lebanon. This relationship between Washington and Israel will also come under strain and enter a new period of saliency, which might briefly mean Congress voting to withhold Israel’s funding, to remind Bibi and his coalition partners who really is the superpower (to coin Bill Clinton’s comment once in the White House when Bibi attended a press conference).

What is perhaps even more worrying is the region and how America now retreats. It is inconceivable that US forces will return to the dozen or so military bases in the Gulf, as it is unthinkable that those elites will keep the cash flowing into Wall Street. Indeed, a bundle of $3 trillion USD which Saudi Arabia and the UAE had earmarked for the US AI sector will now not make it, as those countries no longer have the cash flow in their economies, with hotels in Dubai only catering to about 10 percent capacity. Trump’s war literally sent missiles to these new economies, and the Donald cannot complain now that this cash will not make it to the US.

Yet remarkably, Trump is still dreaming. He is still delusional about who he is and what America currently is, and seems to be stuck with his own ideas which feel like they’re from the 1970s rather than 2026. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the beginning of the end. The loss of the petrodollar and the GCC countries with their fast cash feels like the first domino falling for the old empire, while Trump obsesses with tiny minutiae details which take up time posting on social media late at night. In the last days of the Roman Empire, its emperor was said to have been concerned about “Rome” – but this was not a reference to a crumbling civilisation, but to his pet chicken of the same name. When we see the puerile, juvenile row between the diminutive Georgia Meloni and Trump, there is a sense of déjà vu with Rome. A row on X which Meloni keeps alive for days might be seen as incongruous to the bigger picture of the US and EU falling into the abyss, with the EU being such a dog’s breakfast that even bankrupt Britain wouldn’t even want to re-join it now, despite most Brits in polls conceding Brexit was a failure.

The recent comments by the Saudi foreign minister might signal that KSA and the UAE are looking for a completely different defence set-up which might actually bypass the US altogether. Other countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are stepping forward and taking on the challenge by themselves, while leading the anti-Israel doctrine. It is rumoured that Bibi complained to Trump recently about Turkey’s tough talking, but Trump told him to forget about even thinking about hitting the NATO country, as it is simply out of Israel’s league – or words to that effect. But Turkey is the new enemy of Israel. That ball has been rolling for some time.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 25, 2026

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman’s corridor plan and Trump’s threats

Press TV | June 25, 2026

The strategic calculus surrounding Iran’s ongoing negotiations with the United States within the framework of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) has reached a critical juncture.

Two concurrent developments demand a comprehensive and resolute response: Oman’s unilateral announcement of a separate shipping corridor through the Strait of Hormuz and President Donald Trump’s continued military threats against the Islamic Republic.

Taken together, these developments represent a concerted attempt to undermine Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and weaken the fundamental security guarantees that give diplomatic engagement its meaning and value.

For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is far more than a source of economic leverage; it constitutes a cornerstone of national security, a critical component of its deterrence posture, and a vital mechanism for preventing future acts of aggression.

The Strait of Hormuz: A matter of national sovereignty

The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most strategically significant maritime chokepoints in the world, through which approximately 20 percent of global oil supplies transit. For Iran, control over this waterway is intrinsically linked to national security, economic sovereignty, and the capacity to deter any form of external aggression.

The recent visit of Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, to Muscat appears to have been exploited by Oman under US pressure to advance an agenda that directly contradicts Iran’s sovereign rights over the strategic waterway.

Oman’s unilateral announcement of a separate route requiring only coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) constitutes a calculated maneuver to undermine Iran’s legal and legitimate authority over the Strait.

This action was taken without any coordination with Tehran and coincides with mine-clearing operations based on the memorandum signed between Iran and the United States.

The strategic logic suggests that by creating an alternative corridor, Oman has offered vessels a route that avoids Iran’s jurisdiction, effectively normalizing a system where Iran’s role in administering the Strait becomes irrelevant.

The timing is particularly significant. As mine-clearing operations proceed, Omani authorities have directed vessels toward this alternative corridor, whose route poses serious safety risks and is unacceptable, according to Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy.

This effectively undermines one of Iran’s most significant bargaining chips – the ability to control access through the Strait and ensure compliance with its security requirements.

IRGC’s warning: An essential but insufficient first step

In response to this challenge, the IRGC Navy issued a timely warning that “the only authorized routes for vessels’ passage through the Strait of Hormuz are the ones announced by Iranian authorities.”

The statement emphasized that “vessel traffic outside these routes is prohibited and highly dangerous,” adding that “coordination with the IRGC Navy via Channel 16 is mandatory for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.”

This response demonstrates Iran’s readiness to protect its sovereignty and maintain its authoritative position over one of the most critical energy chokepoints in the world.

However, as a purely military response, it is insufficient to address the full scope of the challenge. The Omani initiative is fundamentally a political maneuver, and it requires a coordinated response that includes diplomatic, legal, and security dimensions.

The existential implications cannot be overstated. The threat to Iran’s national security, the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, and the imposition of two illegal and unprovoked wars through the use of hostile American bases and the cooperation of Arab countries are not matters that can be ignored within diplomatic engagement.

The primary means of preventing their recurrence is firm control over the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran permits this condition to be eroded through political maneuvering, it risks losing a critical deterrent mechanism without receiving commensurate concessions in return.

Trump’s threats: A direct violation of clause 1

Concurrent with the challenge to Iran’s legal authority over the Strait, Trump has once again threatened that if Iran does not act according to his whims, he will impose war once again.

These statements go far beyond psychological warfare intended to weaken the morale of Iranian negotiators or serve domestic political purposes. They constitute a direct violation of Clause 1 of the memorandum signed by him and the Iranian president last week, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”

Trump’s threat to “blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators” represents an explicit violation of the agreement.

When combined with the Zionist regime’s insistence on continuing its occupation of Lebanese territory – itself a clear violation of the memorandum’s provisions regarding the cessation of hostilities on all fronts – the pattern becomes unmistakable. The enemy is systematically testing the limits of Iran’s commitment to the negotiation process while violating its fundamental provisions.

The statement by US Treasury Secretary describing the $30 billion in frozen assets and sanctions relief as a “temporary carrot” that can be withdrawn whenever desired demonstrates that, from the enemy’s perspective, what it believes it will ultimately obtain from Iran far exceeds what it is offering during the negotiation process.

This perception must be neutralized through both the words and actions of Iranian officials.

The strategic importance of the Strait in the negotiations

The Strait of Hormuz’s importance extends beyond economic considerations. It serves as the primary mechanism for creating practical guarantees for the fulfillment of Iran’s conditions within the memorandum, similar to what occurred in Lebanon and immediately revealed its consequences. Control over the Strait enables Iran to compensate for war damages, provide security against future aggression, and prevent the passage of military and hostile vessels.

The memorandum commits Iran “to arrange for the safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait, with no charge for 60 days.” The subsequent joint statement with Oman “agreed to establish a joint working group to negotiate the future administration of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

However, Oman’s unilateral action effectively preempts this negotiation process by establishing a separate corridor that bypasses Iranian authorization.

The implementation of what Oman has announced would constitute a clear example of the enemy achieving through the political process what it failed to achieve through military means during the Third Imposed War.

If realized, it would increase the enemy’s appetite to obtain through diplomacy what it was unable to secure through all-out military aggression, a precedent that would embolden further violations of Iran’s sovereignty.

Available responses and strategic options

Various measures exist for responding to this new challenge, each with its own implications:

First, suspending mine-clearing operations would signal that Iran’s commitment to safe passage is conditional on recognition of its authority over the Strait. This would maintain pressure on global shipping and demonstrate that Iran retains the capacity to disrupt traffic if its sovereignty is not respected.

Second, imposing restrictions on vessel passage that deviate from Iranian-designated routes would enforce Iran’s jurisdictional claims directly. The IRGC Navy has already warned that “ships’ movement through other routes is dangerous and prohibited,” establishing the basis for enforcement actions.

Third, military action against violating ships, while potentially escalatory, would demonstrate Iran’s determination to protect its sovereignty. The IRGC Navy has already stated that “any vessel found in violation will be subject to enforcement measures,” establishing a credible deterrent against hostile entities.

Fourth, announcing a halt to negotiations or postponing the next round would signal that these developments have fundamentally altered the basis for continued engagement. This would be particularly appropriate given that Trump’s threats directly violate Clause 1 of the memorandum.

Fifth, escalating the political response through diplomatic channels while the armed forces maintain their deterrent posture. As the points above indicate, the first response by the IRGC Navy is timely and appropriate but insufficient; political responses must be added within the framework of the diplomatic negotiation process.

The risk of precedent and the nature of the enemy

What is at stake extends beyond the immediate question of the Strait. If Oman’s unilateral action is permitted to stand, it would establish a precedent that Iran’s sovereignty can be circumvented through coordinated political maneuvering.

That would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region, demonstrating that Iran’s strategic assets can be neutralized through diplomatic means rather than requiring military confrontation.

The enemy’s objective in these negotiations appears to be:

1. Gaining access to Iran’s 60-percent enriched material

2. Obtaining complete intelligence regarding the remaining nuclear infrastructure and facilities

3. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz on terms favorable to the United States and its allies

4. Securing economic breathing space for the world and the United States

5. Preserving the Republican Party’s position in the November midterm elections

In return, Iran is offered temporary concessions such as oil exports, lifting the naval blockade, and releasing some assets, whose total financial value of approximately $30 billion is of very limited significance when compared with the strategic importance of Iran’s tools and capabilities, especially the Strait of Hormuz and the unified Resistance Front.

The comparison with Lebanon is instructive. When Iran demonstrated commitment to the ceasefire, it was met with continued Israeli occupation and attacks, demonstrating that the enemy seeks to exploit Iranian goodwill rather than reciprocate it.

The inadequate response to these violations, alongside discussions about the return of IAEA inspectors and Iran’s failure to publish a fact sheet regarding the agreement, increases ambiguity in public opinion and leads to greater polarization.

A coherent strategy for the negotiations

Iran’s response to these challenges must be coordinated, multifaceted, and proportionate to the gravity of the developments. The armed forces’ response, while necessary, must be supplemented by political actions within the diplomatic framework.

Several principles should guide this approach:

First, Iran must maintain its position that control over the Strait of Hormuz is non-negotiable and essential for national security. Any arrangement that circumvents Iranian authority must be rejected absolutely.

Second, the perception that Iran can be pressured into abandoning its strategic assets through diplomatic engagement must be countered through concrete actions that demonstrate the costs of violating Iran’s sovereignty.

Third, the link between the negotiation process and the security situation, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Resistance Front, must be maintained. Concessions on one issue cannot be made in isolation from progress on others.

Fourth, Iran must articulate clearly that the threatening rhetoric by US officials constitutes violations of the memorandum and will be met with appropriate responses, including the possibility of suspension or postponement of the negotiations.

Fifth, Iran should leverage the extraordinary strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz as the primary means of providing security guarantees and preventing future aggression. The existential threat against Iran’s national security demands that sovereignty over the Strait be maintained as a fundamental condition of any agreement.

The path forward requires rejecting the assumption that these challenges can be addressed through military responses alone.

The coordinated political and diplomatic maneuvering by the United States, its regional allies, and Oman demands a comprehensive response that integrates the armed forces’ capabilities with political diplomacy. Anything less would signal weakness and encourage further violations of Iran’s sovereignty and the terms of the memorandum.

Ultimately, Iran’s position must be clear: the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian authority, and any route that does not coordinate with Iran is unacceptable and will face appropriate measures.

The negotiations should not appear as an opportunity for the enemy to achieve through political means what it could not achieve through illegal war of aggression.

Iran’s strategic assets – the Strait of Hormuz, the Resistance Front, and its nuclear capabilities – are not negotiable items but fundamental components of the country’s national security that must be preserved.

The burden lies with the other parties to demonstrate their commitment to the agreement and respect for Iran’s sovereignty through their actions, not merely words.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman’s corridor plan and Trump’s threats

Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran

Press TV – June 25, 2026

The recent war imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States and its Zionist ally was built around many sweeping and ambitious objectives, including “regime change,” dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, destruction of its missile capabilities, and the containment of its regional influence.

Instead, Iran not only survived the most intense and no-holds-barred military onslaught in its modern history but emerged stronger, more cohesive, and more influential than ever before.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed digitally between the presidents of Iran and the United States last week is a testament to Iran’s strategic victory. Every clause reflects Tehran’s battlefield success and Washington’s battlefield failure.

Objective 1: “Regime change” – A fantasy that died on the battlefield

The United States launched the unprovoked and illegal war with the publicly declared goal of toppling the Islamic Republic. For decades, Washington had dreamed of a Tehran that would be compliant, pliable, and free of the ideological and strategic independence that has defined Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini.

The war was presented as the moment when that dream would finally become reality.

The strategy was classic American “regime-change” doctrine: all-out aerial bombardment, economic strangulation, psychological warfare, and the cultivation of a fifth column within Iranian society. The assumption was that sustained pressure would crack the system and trigger a popular uprising against the government.

Instead, the opposite occurred.

Iran’s leadership remained intact and unified. The assassination of the beloved Leader of the Islamic Revolution did not fracture the system but galvanized it.

The Iranian people, whom Western strategists had assumed would rise against their government under the pressure of war, instead poured into the streets by the millions.

Night after night, for over 110 consecutive days, Iranians have demonstrated in support of the country’s leadership and armed forces. The “Janfeda” (Self-Sacrifice) campaign became a nationwide phenomenon, with ordinary citizens expressing their unwavering commitment to the system governing the Islamic Republic and the armed forces.

The “regime-change” fantasy died not because of diplomatic maneuvering, but because it was never rooted in reality. The Iranian system proved resilient. Its institutions functioned under extreme duress. Its armed forces fought with cohesion and courage, maintaining operational effectiveness despite the loss of senior commanders.

And, most importantly, its people refused to betray their nation. The American intelligence community miscalculated catastrophically. They had assumed that economic pressure would translate into political discontent, but it translated into defiance. They had assumed that military strikes would break the people’s will, but they strengthened it.

The MoU contains no provision for “regime change” because the US simply could not achieve it. It is an admission from Washington that its project failed. The American dream of a post-Islamic Republic Iran is effectively dead, and the war proved it beyond any doubt.

Objective 2: Destruction of Iran’s nuclear program – A complete failure

The nuclear program was one of the primary justifications for the unprovoked war. Washington and Tel Aviv claimed that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon and that military action was necessary to prevent that outcome.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities – first in June last year and now during the Ramadan War – were intended to set the program back years, if not destroy it entirely. The goal was “zero enrichment” – a complete cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, the dismantling of its centrifuges, and the removal of all enriched uranium from Iranian soil.

Yet Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact. The enrichment facilities continue to operate. The centrifuges continue to spin. The “zero enrichment” goal, so cherished by Israel and its American backers, has been effectively abandoned.

Iran’s nuclear scientists, despite being targets of assassination campaigns for years, have continued their work even amid the war. The underground nuclear sites survived the bombardment, and the country’s nuclear program demonstrated its resilience.

The MoU reflects this reality. There is no commitment from Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. There is no suspension of enrichment. There is no transfer of enriched uranium. The only nuclear-related commitment in the agreement is Iran’s reaffirmation of its NPT pledge not to produce nuclear weapons – a commitment Tehran has always maintained and which is fully consistent with its peaceful nuclear program.

The United States has been forced to accept that Iran’s nuclear rights are not negotiable.

This represents a complete reversal of American objectives. The US launched the war intending to end Iran’s nuclear program. It ended the war by accepting that the nuclear program is permanent.

Objective 3: Weakening Iran’s defensive missile power – Strengthened instead

The missile program of the Islamic Republic was another primary target. American and Israeli strategists believed that relentless bombardment would cripple Iran’s production capabilities, destroy its stockpiles, and degrade its ability to project power.

The goal was to leave Iran defenseless and unable to retaliate. A thousand airstrikes were launched against missile production facilities, storage sites, and launch pads. The objective was to destroy Iran’s ability to threaten its adversaries or defend itself.

Instead, Iran’s missile industry has been strengthened. The war provided a real-world testing ground for Iranian technology. The use of older ammunition and equipment paved the way for newer, more advanced systems.

Iran’s underground missile cities – carved deep into mountains – proved resilient to bunker-busting bombs. The production lines never stopped. In fact, they accelerated.

The strategic calculus of Iranian planners proved prescient. By distributing production facilities across the country, by situating them deep underground, and by maintaining redundant supply chains, Iran ensured that no single bombing campaign could cripple its missile industry. The US could destroy surface targets, but it could not reach the heart of Iran’s missile production.

The MoU makes no mention of Iran’s missile program. It was not discussed or negotiated. It is not even on the table. Even Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif admitted on Tuesday that it was not on the agenda during the Islamabad-mediated talks.

The US has been forced to accept that Iran’s missile capabilities are a fact they have to live with. The program that was supposed to be destroyed is now stronger than ever, and the United States has signed an agreement that does not even mention it.

Objective 4: Containment of Iran’s regional influence – Expanded instead

Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped to use the war to roll back Iran’s regional influence. They wanted to break the Axis of Resistance, isolate Tehran, and redraw the regional map in their favor. The strategy was to sever Iran from its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Yemen, and to create a new regional order that excluded Tehran.

Instead, Iran’s influence has significantly expanded. The Resistance Front is more cohesive and powerful than ever. The war demonstrated that Iran cannot be isolated, that its allies are strategic partners, and that any solution to regional security must include Iran.

Hezbollah, Ansarullah, Hamas, and Iraqi resistance groups fought alongside Iran’s military, coordinating their efforts and demonstrating the depth of the strategic relationship. This axis proved itself to be a genuine alliance, not a collection of clients.

The war also exposed the weakness of the American regional alliance system. The Persian Gulf states, having relied on the US security umbrella for decades, watched in horror as American bases were systematically targeted and American deterrence collapsed.

The “paper tiger” metaphor took on new meaning as Iranian missiles struck deep into the heart of US military infrastructure in the region. The Persian Gulf monarchies, facing the reality of Iranian military power, have been forced to recalibrate their regional calculations.

This is why the MoU explicitly demands the cessation of the enemy’s aggression on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran did not just protect itself, but it also protected the entire Resistance Axis. The inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement is a clear recognition that Iran’s regional role is now a permanent and non-negotiable reality. The US has effectively acknowledged that it cannot eliminate Iran’s influence; it must accommodate it.

The recent war against Iran was supposed to be the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic. Instead, it was the beginning of the end for American hegemony in the region.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »