The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | June 13, 2026
The sheer scale of munitions consumed during the Third Imposed War is without modern precedent in American warfare. As reported by The New York Times, within just the first two days of the military aggression that began on February 28, an estimated $5.6 billion worth of precision-guided munitions were expended, a sum that exceeds the annual military budgets of most countries in the world.
Over the full 40-day war leading up to the fragile ceasefire in early April, US forces struck more than 13,000 targets, many of which required multiple munitions each. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the cost of the air campaign alone reached between $11.3 billion in its first six days and $16.5 billion by day twelve.
The total cost over 40 days of full-scale military aggression, followed by subsequent hostilities in the Persian Gulf region, amounts to a far greater sum. While the Pentagon has estimated the figure at around $25 billion, independent assessments place the cost closer to $100 billion.
These figures do not reflect a campaign defined by restraint or resource discipline. Rather, they reveal a military establishment that bet its most advanced precision arsenal on a war it expected to win quickly – only to find itself mired in a quagmire of its own making.
JASSM-ER: Draining the Pacific’s first line of strike
No single weapons system reveals the strategic recklessness of so-called “Operation Epic Fury” more precisely than the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range, known in Pentagon parlance as the JASSM-ER.
This is not a conventional cruise missile. It is a stealthy, air-launched precision strike weapon with a range exceeding 600 miles, purpose-built to penetrate the most sophisticated integrated air defense systems in the world.
Its operational logic is explicitly tied to high-end war scenarios – specifically, a potential confrontation with China in the Western Pacific, where the People’s Liberation Army has constructed the most elaborate anti-access/area-denial architecture in history. The JASSM-ER is the weapon Washington designed for its most serious adversary. And it is largely gone.
At the outset of the war of aggression launched on February 28, the United States held a JASSM-ER inventory of approximately 2,300 missiles. According to Bloomberg, citing a source with direct knowledge of the matter, US forces consumed more than 1,000 JASSM-ERs in the first four weeks of the campaign alone.
The New York Times, drawing on Department of War sources, placed total JASSM-ER expenditure over the full campaign at approximately 1,100 missiles. An additional 47 were fired in a separate operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The order to drain Pacific stockpiles for the Iran campaign, stripping missiles from US facilities across the continental US and repositioning them to CENTCOM bases and RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom, was issued at the end of March, according to Bloomberg.
The arithmetic is unambiguous and brutal. Of a prewar JASSM-ER inventory of 2,300, approximately 425 remain available for the rest of the world, roughly 18 percent of the prewar total. In the shorter-range baseline JASSM variant, approximately two-thirds of total stocks across both versions were committed to the Iran campaign, according to Bloomberg.
CSIS calculates that around 25 percent of the total combined JASSM inventory was expended in just 40 days of combat.
The unit cost of the JASSM-ER is $1.1 million per missile. The JASSM baseline variant costs $2.6 million per unit at current procurement figures. The roughly 1,100 JASSM-ERs fired in the recent war, therefore, represent approximately $1.2 billion in precision strike munitions, consumed in a campaign that failed to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, did not fracture its command structure, and did not alter the strategic balance in West Asia.
Replenishment will not be swift, as per experts. The US Air Force has procured JASSM variants at an average rate of nearly 500 per year over the past decade, and existing orders in the pipeline mean that JASSM inventories will recover more quickly than other systems; CSIS estimates “several months to a year” for baseline replacement.
However, this timeline assumes no new wars, no additional campaign consumption, and full US Congressional funding of the FY 2027 military procurement request, which has not yet been appropriated.
Tomahawk: A thousand missiles in the 40-day war
The BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is the oldest and most combat-proven precision strike weapon in the US Navy’s inventory, having been used in every major American military operation since Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Its versatility, fired from surface ships and submarines, capable of loitering and retargeting in flight, with a range of approximately 1,000 miles, makes it the Navy’s primary instrument of long-range power projection.
The war against Iran consumed it on a historically unprecedented scale.
The Washington Post reported that US naval assets fired more than 850 Tomahawks in the first month of the third imposed war. The Wall Street Journal subsequently updated that figure to more than 1,000 over the full pre-ceasefire campaign period.
CSIS’s analysis of the first six days alone identified 319 TLAMs expended, representing approximately 10 percent of the prewar inventory in less than a week.
The prewar Tomahawk inventory stood at approximately 3,200 missiles. The expenditure of over 1,000, therefore, represents roughly 31 percent of the prewar total consumed in 40 days, more than ten times the annual procurement rate.
The Pentagon ordered just 190 new Tomahawks in 2026, a figure barely more than half the number fired in the first six days of the war. The US Navy has requested 785 Tomahawks in the FY 2027 budget, a substantial increase from prior years, but CSIS projects these will not begin arriving in US inventories until March 2030, after 34 months of production lead time.
US Tomahawk inventories will not return to prewar levels until late 2030 at the earliest.
The cost consequences compound the strategic ones. Each Tomahawk Block V costs approximately $1.87 million. The 1,000-plus Tomahawks fired in the recent war, therefore, represent approximately $1.9 billion in naval strike capability, consumed against a country that, at the ceasefire, retained its ballistic missile launch capacity, its underground missile production infrastructure, and its ability to control shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
The allied dimension of the Tomahawk shortage adds a further layer of strategic damage. Japan, which recently completed modifications on a destroyer to fire TLAMs and had purchased 400 missiles as part of its historic shift toward a more robust conventional deterrent posture against Chinese pressure, has reportedly been told that its deliveries may be delayed indefinitely because the United States must prioritize refilling its own depleted stockpiles.
Australia has also purchased more than 200 Tomahawks, and the Netherlands has purchased 175. All of these allied orders now sit in a queue behind American replenishment needs, weakening the combined deterrent posture of the US alliance network in the Western Pacific at precisely the moment that network is under the greatest pressure.
The defensive arsenal: Patriot, THAAD, and interceptor crisis
While the consumption of offensive strike missiles has drawn significant analytical attention, the depletion of America’s missile defense interceptor inventory may carry even more severe long-term strategic consequences.
These systems, including the much-hyped Patriot PAC-3 MSE, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and the Standard Missiles SM-3 and SM-6, are not interchangeable with cheaper alternatives. They are the irreplaceable components of layered missile defense architecture, designed to defeat the ballistic and cruise missile threats posed by peer and near-peer adversaries.
In the Pacific scenario, they are the systems that would need to protect US forward bases, carrier strike groups, and allied territory from Chinese ballistic missile salvos in the opening hours of any war. Instead, they are being consumed in the Persian Gulf.
The Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptor, at approximately $4 million per unit, was among the most heavily used anti-missile systems in the recent war imposed on Iran.
The New York Times reported that over 1,200 Patriot interceptors were fired during the aggression. CSIS estimates that Patriot usage, combined with the ongoing supply of interceptors to Ukraine, has left prewar PAC-3 inventory at critically reduced levels.
The Army’s FY 2027 budget requests 3,203 Patriot missiles, a procurement figure that reflects the scale of the shortfall, but CSIS projects these will not begin delivery until May 2029, with full replenishment of prewar levels taking three or more years from the present.
Current Patriot production stands at approximately 650 interceptors per year, with roughly half going to allied orders. Lockheed Martin intends to surge production to 2,000 per year, but achieving this capacity requires years of facility and tooling expansion.
In the interim, the United States faces a set of allocation decisions with no good options: prioritize replenishment of its own depleted stocks, continue supplying Ukraine, or fulfill the orders of the 17 other countries that operate the Patriot system and are now watching their own deliveries pushed back indefinitely.
Swiss authorities have already threatened to cancel their Patriot purchase and seek an alternative supplier after being informed of delivery delays. The bilateral friction this production shortfall is generating with allied governments has been explicitly acknowledged by CSIS and represents a tangible erosion of alliance cohesion at a moment of acute strategic uncertainty.
The THAAD situation is, by CSIS’s assessment, the most critical of all. THAAD is the upper-tier component of the US missile defense architecture, designed to intercept ballistic missiles at higher altitudes and longer ranges than Patriot.
Its interceptors are expensive, scarce, and – as of the ongoing fragile ceasefire – severely depleted. CSIS estimates that between 52 and 81 percent of the prewar THAAD interceptor inventory was expended in the recent war and related offensives, building on roughly 150 THAAD interceptors already consumed during the 12-day war in June 2025.
There have been no new deliveries of THAAD interceptors since August 2023. Deliveries are not scheduled to resume until April 2027 at the earliest. The US Army’s FY 2027 budget requests 857 THAAD interceptors, which CSIS projects will not complete the replacement of the usage during the recent war against Iran until the end of calendar year 2029.
Compounding the interceptor shortage is the damage or possible destruction of multiple AN/TPY-2 radar systems – the targeting backbone of THAAD batteries – during Iranian retaliatory strikes on US facilities in the region.
Only 13 AN/TPY-2 radars have been delivered to the United States in total. The loss or degradation of even two or three of these systems represents a qualitative capability gap that cannot be papered over by procurement requests. The US has also maintained only eight THAAD batteries in total, a number that was considered inadequate for simultaneous deployment in multiple theaters even before the war on Iran consumed the interceptors from those batteries at a rate far exceeding production capacity to replace them.
The ship-launched Standard Missiles present a somewhat less acute but still serious picture. CSIS estimates that SM-3 expenditure in the recent war ranged from 31 to 60 percent of prewar inventory, while SM-6 consumption ran between 16 and 32 percent.
Both missiles carry production lead times of 36 to 39 months from contract award to first delivery. Inventories will not return to prewar levels until early 2029 – despite their relatively lower usage in the 40-day war of aggression – reflecting the cumulative effect of years of inadequate procurement before the war began.
The cost ledger: What was spent and what was not gained
The aggregate financial cost of the munitions consumed in the recent war against Iran, calculated from unit costs and reported expenditure figures, represents one of the most expensive failed military campaigns in the history of modern warfare.
The principal expenditures, based on CSIS data and DOD reporting, break down as follows. Over 1,100 JASSM-ER missiles at $1.1 million each account for approximately $1.21 billion. More than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles at $1.87 million each represent approximately $1.87 billion. Over 1,200 Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors at $4 million each amount to approximately $4.8 billion. More than 1,000 Precision Strike Missiles and ATACMS, at between $500,000 and $1.5 million each, add a further $500 million to $1.5 billion.
THAAD interceptors, along with SM-3 and SM-6 expenditures, contribute several hundred million more at their respective unit costs. The aggregate munitions cost of the war runs to well in excess of $10 billion, and that figure covers only the missiles, not the operational costs of the platforms that delivered them, the intelligence infrastructure that supported targeting, or the diplomatic capital expended in securing basing and overflight rights.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth himself, in testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that replenishment will take “months and years, depending on the weapon system.” CSIS’s assessment supports that timeline in its conservative form and exceeds it in the more pessimistic analysis.
The combined picture across all seven critical munitions categories is that the US will not return to prewar inventory levels for any of its most critical systems before 2028 at the earliest, with Tomahawk, THAAD, and Patriot taking three or more years from the present.
Building inventories to the levels that war planners have identified as necessary for a high-intensity peer war, levels that were already considered insufficient even before the Iran war, will take additional years beyond that.
The China variable: A window of vulnerability measured in years
The strategic meaning of these numbers transcends the war against Iran in itself. The JASSM-ER was not designed to strike Iranian nuclear facilities but to defeat Chinese integrated air defense systems protecting military targets in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
The Tomahawk was not stockpiled to prosecute a campaign in the Persian Gulf but maintained as the Navy’s primary instrument of long-range strike in a Western Pacific contingency. The THAAD interceptors depleted over Iranian skies were the same interceptors positioned in South Korea and Guam to defend against North Korean and Chinese ballistic missile threats. They have been moved and their replacements are years away.
Even before the war against Iran, as assessments suggest, US munitions stockpiles were deemed insufficient for a peer competitor fight in the Western Pacific, based on the classified war-gaming conclusions of the House Select Committee on China.
That shortfall is now dramatically more acute. The think tank’s characterization that depleted inventories have created a “window of vulnerability” for a potential Western Pacific war is not alarmist rhetoric but a straightforward arithmetic conclusion drawn from the procurement timelines and inventory figures its researchers have calculated from publicly available budget documents.
The implications for Chinese strategic calculations are substantial and not easily dismissed. Beijing’s military planners have observed, in real time, that the US consumed its primary long-range strike inventory – the very capabilities designed to hold Chinese assets at risk in a Taiwan contingency – in a 40-day war that did not achieve its strategic objectives.
They have observed that the combined JASSM and Tomahawk inventories available for Pacific contingencies are now a fraction of their prewar levels. They have observed that THAAD batteries have been stripped from South Korea – degrading the missile defense coverage of a key US ally on China’s periphery – and that their replacement is years away.
And they have observed that American production capacity, constrained by decades of procurement at peacetime rates and manufacturing lead times measured in years rather than months, cannot rapidly reverse any of these deficits, regardless of how much money US Congress appropriates.
This is not the profile of a deterrent in robust health, but the profile of a military establishment that has consumed its premium, China-specific capabilities in a secondary theater without achieving the decisive outcome that would have justified the expenditure, and that now faces a multi-year period of structural vulnerability during which its ability to credibly threaten the use of force in the Taiwan Strait is materially diminished.
The CSIS report notes with the cautious observation that China is deeply aware it has no recent combat experience, while the US military has been engaged in wars on multiple fronts, and that this experiential differential may preserve deterrence until inventories are restored. This is a thin reed on which to hang the credibility of American extended deterrence across Indo-Pacific.
The deterrent value of operational skill is real, but it is not a substitute for the physical missiles that a deterrent posture requires, and Beijing’s strategic calculus is driven more by inventory mathematics than by assessments of American tactical proficiency.
The production constraint: Why money cannot buy time
The Trump administration has responded to the munitions crisis with a series of framework agreements with major contractors – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing – committing to expand production capacity across the full range of critical munitions.
Lockheed Martin has agreed to quadruple THAAD interceptor production capacity from 96 to 400 per year. Raytheon has committed to increasing Tomahawk production to more than 1,000 per year and Patriot MSE output to 2,000 per year.
These are significant capacity targets that, if achieved, would substantially accelerate inventory recovery relative to current baselines.
But capacity is not production, and production agreements are not delivered missiles, according to military experts. The fundamental constraint is not financial but temporal. Manufacturing lead time for advanced missile systems – the period between contract award and first delivery – runs between 34 and 39 months for the most critical systems. Building new production facilities, qualifying new supply chains, training additional skilled labor, and resolving bottlenecks in specialized components such as guidance systems and rocket motors are processes measured in years, not quarters.
The FY 2027 defense budget, even if fully and promptly appropriated by a Congress that has not yet voted on it, will not produce a single additional THAAD interceptor or Tomahawk before 2030. The window of vulnerability is already wide open.
Hegseth’s own assessment before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that replenishment will take “months and years, depending on the weapon system,” represents, in the carefully hedged language of executive branch testimony, an acknowledgment that the US has accepted a period of strategic risk in exchange for a military campaign that did not deliver the outcome its architects promised.
The question that American strategic planners cannot answer to Beijing’s satisfaction is how long that window remains open – and what Beijing’s strategic interests, combined with this window of opportunity, might produce.
No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
RT | June 13, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz will not return to its pre-war status.
The minister made the remarks as the US and Iran are finalizing a deal to end the conflict, which began on February 28 with joint US-Israeli bombardments of Iranian territory and the assassination of senior officials, including the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.
The waterway, which normally handles around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade, has largely remained closed throughout the war, although President Donald Trump said the US military had helped guide more than 200 ships through the strait.
“The Strait of Hormuz lies under the sovereignty of Iran and Oman. The administration of the waterway will not return to its pre-war arrangement. Iran and Oman will soon issue a joint statement outlining a new framework for the administration of the Strait of Hormuz,” Araghchi said on Friday, according to Iranian media.
The diplomat said Iran would charge passing ships service fees. Tehran had previously insisted that it maintained full sovereignty over the strait and would collect tolls.
Araghchi said that, under the memorandum of understanding awaiting final approval, the US would, “for the first time in 47 years,” commit to respecting Iran’s sovereignty and non-interference in its domestic affairs. The agreement would also declare an end to the conflict on all fronts, including in Lebanon, he said.
Iran most recently declared the strait closed to all ships in response to US strikes on Tuesday and Wednesday. Trump later said he had called off the attack in an effort to advance peace talks, expressing confidence that an agreement could be signed as early as this weekend.
Iran is not the one using Lebanon as its bargaining chip
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has claimed that Iran is “using Lebanon as its bargaining chip.” Not only is this blatantly false, but it also implies that Tehran has something material to gain from including Lebanon in its ceasefire agreement.
Several inflammatory statements have recently been issued by the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, blaming Iran for “Israel’s” mass murder of Lebanese civilians and its illegal invasion of southern Lebanese lands.
These allegations against Iran are not new. For decades, they have been fabricated by Israeli politicians and Zionist think-tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). There is, however, a significant difference when such claims are echoed by a Lebanese president and whose government has been instructed to engage in direct talks with an enemy that, within a matter of months, has killed around 3,600 of his country’s citizens and continues to occupy Lebanese territory.
The mere concept of Lebanon’s “bargaining chip” is factually incorrect in Iran’s case. A “bargaining chip” means that Tehran would use Lebanon to its own benefit, which is patently false. If anything, Iran’s demands that “Israel” withdraw from Lebanese territory and cease its bombing campaign are making the prospect of reaching any deal more difficult.
If we focus solely on what would materially benefit Iran, the other demands it has listed – namely guarantees against future aggression, the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the lifting of sanctions, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of assets, and compensation – are tangible gains. By contrast, the demand that any ceasefire apply across all fronts, especially the stipulation of a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, offers Iran no direct material benefit. This is a matter of principle rather than self-interest.
One could argue that by insisting on Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire agreement, Iran was seeking to strengthen its standing while demonstrating loyalty to its allies. Yet if this were primarily a strategic or symbolic demand, Tehran could simply have accepted a return to the status quo that “Israel” had imposed on southern Lebanon prior to March 2.
Instead, the demand is that “Israel” no longer be permitted to do what it did following the announcement of the November 27, 2024 ceasefire agreement, which, according to UNIFIL, it violated at least 15,400 times. Iran has been clear that it is not interested in a merely symbolic agreement; it wants credible assurances that “Israel” will cease its bombing and retreat from Lebanese territory.
In reality, there are two reasons these kinds of statements are made – The first being that in the event of an Iranian comprehensive deal that forces the Zionist regime to retreat fully, the Lebanese leadership will lose all its remaining legitimacy. The second reason is that this argument closely mirrors a talking point promoted by US officials.
In 2021, Hezbollah facilitated the transfer of Iranian fuel shipments to Lebanon at a time when the country was experiencing a severe energy crisis. The following year, Tehran also offered additional fuel supplies to Lebanon on a free-of-charge basis. More broadly, Iran has historically provided financial support for a range of Lebanese social initiatives, including welfare programs, assistance to low-income communities, and reconstruction efforts.
Despite the Lebanese leadership that took power in February 2025 adopting a generally adversarial stance toward Hezbollah and Iran, Tehran did not seek to obstruct the formation of the government. In fact, Nawaf Salam and Joseph Aoun came to power in a political context in which Hezbollah and the Amal Movement ultimately chose not to block the process, reportedly in the interest of preserving domestic stability.
Allegations that Iran is responsible for the war are simply outlandish. Iran’s ambassador was declared “persona non-grata”, yet the Lebanese government is now sitting down for direct negotiations with the Israelis. All of the accusations made against Iran are simply nonsensical.
If Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam truly believed in Lebanese sovereignty, then they would also expel the US ambassador who represents a government that quite literally greenlights Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon. In this sense, the argument against Iran is not new; it draws on longstanding narratives that have circulated for decades and often lack substantive grounding.
It is often argued that a basic requirement of any ceasefire should be the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces from occupied territory. In this context, Iranian warnings that further Israeli strikes on Beirut would trigger retaliation came amid heightened tensions ahead of the third round of direct Lebanon–”Israel” negotiations, during which a planned Israeli escalation did not proceed.
For 15 months, diplomacy was given a chance. The result: Israelis are still occupying southern Lebanon, and they continue bombing Lebanese territory, while the US has developed a plan for disarming the Resistance instead.
Iranian media reveal details of potential Iran-US draft MoU
Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2026
Iran has firmly refused to capitulate to recent American military and diplomatic pressure aimed at forcing changes to its 14-article proposal, Tasnim News Agency reported, citing informed sources.
Despite direct US military actions and leverage applied through Qatari mediation by President Donald Trump, Tehran rejected newly proposed amendments from Washington, according to Tasnim’s sources.
The United States has, in fact, communicated through the Qatari mediator that it is withdrawing its latest amendments as they were no longer necessary.
However, the sources emphasized that the draft text must still undergo formal review and receive final approval from Iran’s relevant governing institutions. Until that process is complete, the sources added, all media speculations regarding a finalized deal remain entirely inaccurate.
Talks to exclude Iranian missile program: Mehr
According to a separate report from Iran’s Mehr News Agency, the proposed memorandum of understanding with Washington outlines a comprehensive framework in which final-stage negotiations will focus strictly on nuclear and economic issues. Notably, the draft explicitly excludes any discussions regarding Iran’s ballistic missile program.
The draft details a series of mutual commitments. Under the terms, the United States would be required to lift secondary sanctions, withdraw its military forces from areas surrounding Iran, end the naval blockade on Iranian ports, and facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to restore global trade.
Furthermore, the memorandum includes provisions for the total abolition of oil sanctions and the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets held abroad during the negotiation period, provided that half of this amount, i.e., $12 billion, is made available to Iran before the start of negotiations.
These developments come amid emerging Western media reports of a potential US-Iran deal, with some outlets suggesting the agreement might be signed in Geneva. Iranian sources, however, continue to caution that no final deal has been reached until formal approval is granted.
IRNA delves into potential agreement
Meanwhile, IRNA has published a detailed account of the potential agreement between Iran and the United States, emphasizing that the text has been drafted with extreme precision to prevent arbitrary interpretation or evasion of obligations by either side.
According to IRNA, no agreement will be reached on the nuclear file under the current memorandum of understanding. Iran will not offer any new commitments, and nuclear talks will be held within 60 days of signing.
According to IRNA, Iran is making no commitments regarding the administration of the Strait of Hormuz; it will instead be resolved within a regional framework through joint dialogue and decision-making between Tehran and Oman.
The primary objective of the memorandum, the agency said, is to end the war on all fronts in the region. According to IRNA, the United States is obligated to compel “Israel” to end the war on Lebanon, emphasizing that the phrase “extension of the ceasefire” has no place in the text.
Regarding frozen assets, some will be released immediately upon signing, with the remainder released gradually during negotiations. Tehran has obtained clear guarantees based on the mechanisms it requires, according to the report.
The implementation mechanism for receiving compensation will be agreed upon during the 60-day negotiations following the signing. The lifting of all US sanctions and international resolutions will also be reviewed during that same 60-day period of nuclear negotiations.
IRNA confirmed that the 60-day negotiations will address only three issues: the continuation of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the lifting of unilateral US sanctions, and the compensation mechanism. The agency explicitly stated that no other issue, including Iran’s missile capabilities, will be on the table.
Iranian Media Publishes 14-Point Iran-US Deal Draft, Revealing Tehran’s Key Conditions
Sputnik – 12.06.2026
A source close to Iran’s negotiating team has released new details of a reported 14-point draft memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, Mehr News Agency reports.
According to the draft, the main points include:
1. An immediate and permanent halt to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon
2. A US commitment not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and to respect its sovereignty
3. The full lifting of the naval blockade within 30 days
4. The withdrawal of US forces from areas around Iran
5. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements
6. Suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil, petrochemical products and derivatives, with full access to related financial resources
7. Reconstruction plans worth at least $300 billion, to be provided by the US and its allies
8. A 60-day negotiation period to reach a final agreement on nuclear issues, sanctions relief, and the removal of relevant UN Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions
9. Iran’s renewed commitment under the NPT not to produce nuclear weapons
10. No increase in US forces in the region and no new sanctions during the talks
11. The release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds, with half made available before negotiations begin
12. The creation of a monitoring mechanism to ensure implementation
13. Endorsement of the final agreement by a UN Security Council resolution
14. Final talks will begin only after half of Iran’s frozen funds are released, oil sanctions are suspended and the naval blockade is lifted.
The final agreement would focus on enriched materials, sanctions relief and economic reconstruction, while Iran’s missile program and support for resistance groups are reportedly excluded from the agenda.
As Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman earlier stated, the text still requires review and final approval by the relevant institutions in Iran.
US ‘limited war’ strategy against Iran deepens its strategic quagmire as Tehran’s deterrence grows
Press TV – June 11, 2026
In the early hours of Thursday, the US once again attacked southern Iran. The official narratives in Washington are already spinning – surgical strikes, proportionate response, mission accomplished. But beneath the fog of disinformation and the whine of cruise missiles and fighter jets lies a deeper strategic truth.
This was no isolated act of aggression but a calculated move in a long, undeclared, and unprovoked war – one that bears an eerie and unsettling resemblance to the Third Imposed War, which began on February 28 and halted only after the American side blinked first.
Yet this round of military aggression is not a replay of the 40-day war. It is something more insidious, more desperate, and ultimately more fragile.
This time, the American war machine relies on calibrated military pressure, psychological warfare, and controlled escalation to force Iran into a political settlement on American terms – without entering a full-scale war that it no longer appears willing, or able, to sustain.
The 40-day imposed war was fundamentally aimed at weakening, destabilizing, or even collapsing the Islamic Republic itself. By contrast, these limited strikes aim to force Tehran into a political agreement engineered around American strategic demands.
The recent strikes against southern Iranian regions – following weeks of simmering tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and the broader regional confrontation – reveal a critical reality: Washington still wants to pressure Iran, yet desperately seeks to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a full-scale regional war it knows will not turn in its favor.
The American war machine finds itself trapped between multiple dangerous options, none offering a clear path to victory, or even a face-saving exit from this deepening quagmire.
To understand why, we must dissect the anatomy of the latest attacks, decode the psychological warfare that accompanies them, and examine the strategic deadlock that drove Washington to choose what can only be called “the fourth path” – a path leading not to Iranian surrender, but to America’s own strategic exhaustion.
Echoes of the Third Imposed War: The same logic, a different trap
Let us be clear about what happened last night. The enemy’s continued attacks on southern Iran are not random or disorganized acts of violence, but carefully calibrated instruments of coercion. The objective is not necessarily the degradation of Iranian military assets or sending a message, but to force the Islamic Republic of Iran into an agreement crafted in Washington, on Washington’s terms, at Washington’s preferred timing.
The immediate point of comparison is the Third Imposed War, when the US-Israeli coalition launched a full-scale military attack intended to topple the Islamic Republic. The similarity is not superficial. In both cases, the enemy has resorted to military tools as the primary mechanism to force Iran’s political submission. Yet the scale and goals differ sharply.
The latest round of aggression is not – at least not directly – about so-called “regime change.” It is about imposing a specific agreement. The United States does not seek to occupy Iran this time, and it lacks both the appetite and the military capability for that.
Instead, the primary objective is to force Iran to sign on the dotted line: an agreement that would impose unreasonable curbs on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, restrict its regional influence, and legitimize a new order of American domination.
This strategy is built around short, localized, carefully calibrated attacks designed to increase pressure on Iran without crossing the threshold into full-fledged war. The underlying calculation is that sustained military and psychological pressure may eventually compel Tehran to make concessions that large-scale imposed war could not achieve.
Yet the very adoption of this strategy reveals an important strategic reality: time may no longer be working in America’s favor.
While the Third Imposed War aimed to annihilate the Islamic Republic, the latest attacks aim to chain it. If you cannot destroy your enemy, you try to cage him. And if you try to cage him through limited strikes, you admit that full-scale war is beyond your reach.
The theater of lies: Psychological operations as a weapon
The most striking feature of the latest round of American aggression is not merely the military dimension, but the massive psychological warfare campaign accompanying it.
No analysis of unfolding events would be complete without addressing the torrent of disinformation that preceded, accompanied, and followed the Thursday strikes.
In this regard, the enemy has learned nothing from the previous war. Extensive, intense, and deliberately misleading psychological operations remain an essential component of American warfare, essentially because other options have failed disastrously.
The aggressive, unhinged rhetoric of Donald Trump and senior US officials before the latest strikes – repetitive threats of overwhelming force, contradictory public statements, claims of secret contacts with Iranian officials, and declarations that military objectives had already been achieved – all form part of a broader attempt to shape perceptions rather than battlefield realities.
Before the latest strikes, Trump and his War Secretary Pete Hegseth adopted an angry, harsh, and openly threatening tone, designed not just to intimidate Tehran but to shape domestic American opinion. Then came the glaring contradictions.
Trump claimed – falsely, as Iranian officials immediately made clear – that Iranian officials had contacted him to beg for an end to the war. No such contact occurred. He claimed the confrontation had achieved all its military objectives – a standard refrain after every US strike, from Vietnam to Syria. And as always, Washington denied any enemy losses, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
These are not minor rhetorical flourishes but deliberate tactics of deception and lies, strikingly similar to American psychological methods during the Third Imposed War.
The goal is twofold: first, to create an illusion of American invincibility and Iranian desperation; second, to muddy the information environment so that independent assessment becomes impossible. If you cannot win the actual war, you try to win the story.
But here is the irony: these attacks have become so routine, so hyperbolic, that they no longer deceive anyone with strategic awareness. The Iranian leadership and public have seen it many times before. When every US attack is declared a complete success, the term loses all meaning. And when every Iranian response is dismissed as negligible, the enemy blinds itself to the asymmetric retaliation that inevitably follows.
Why limited confrontation? The ‘Fourth Path’ emerges
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Why would the United States choose a limited, localized, short-term military confrontation, knowing full well that Iran has demonstrated, repeatedly and powerfully, its ability to respond with devastating effect against enemy bases and interests across the region? The answer lies in a strategic calculus of desperation.
The US war machine faces a classic deadlock, left with four options – none of which work well for it.
Option one is full-scale war. The Pentagon’s own war games consistently show that a comprehensive war with Iran would be catastrophic: hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of casualties, regional conflagration, global oil shocks, and no guarantee of regime change. This option is effectively suicide for any American administration.
Option two is accepting an agreement on Iran’s conditions. This is politically impossible for Washington. After decades of “maximum pressure” policy, to suddenly accept Tehran’s terms would be a humiliating defeat, signaling the irreversible collapse of American deterrence from the Persian Gulf to the Pacific.
Option three is to continue the status quo. That means Iran maintains its de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz, maritime blockades persist, and the region simmers in perpetual low-intensity war. For the United States, this is also a form of slow-motion suicide – a steady erosion of whatever remains of its credibility, economic leverage, and military prestige.
Option four is limited, localized, non-comprehensive confrontation. This is what we saw last night and the night before. A strike here, a retaliation there. Manageable escalation and plausible deniability. The hope is that through calibrated violence, Iran can be coerced into accepting an agreement it has already rejected at the negotiating table.
The fact that Washington has chosen “option four” is, paradoxically, a confession of its weakness. It proves three things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, time is working against the United States. Iran’s steady and significant nuclear progress, growing regional alliances, and strategic patience are outlasting American attention spans.
Second, another full-scale war is not a desirable option for a host of reasons – economic, military, political, and reputational. Third, and most critically, the current draft understanding for ending the imposed war clearly favors Iran.
Tehran has already extracted concessions on sanctions, inspections, and regional architecture. The agreement, as currently being framed, is unacceptable to Washington. Hence the resort to reckless violence.
Asymmetric responses and Iran’s untapped leverage
But here is the fatal flaw in America’s “fourth path.” The entire strategy rests on a single, fragile assumption, which is that Iran will respond in predictable, proportionate, and non-escalatory ways. History – including the recent past – suggests otherwise.
Iran has already demonstrated, in previous confrontations, that its responses can be unpredictable, asymmetric, and devastatingly effective. When the enemy’s risk increases, when even a “limited” operation invites a response that burns bigger than the attack, then this fourth option rapidly becomes ineffective, invalid, and useless.
Consider what Iran has not yet done and could do anytime in the future. Withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remains an option on the table. So does the intensification of conditions for ending the imposed war – demands that could include full lifting of all sanctions, binding guarantees against future attacks, and even compensation for damages. These are strategic levers that Tehran has deliberately kept in reserve.
Moreover, Iran has established a new rule in regional equations: the enemy front is now viewed as unified, and the Resistance Front is equally unified. The enemy understands that investing in limited confrontation may not only fail to produce the desired outcome, but it could, under this new equation, leave the American side in a far worse position than before.
Every strike against Iran is now met with coordinated responses from Tehran, Baghdad, Sana’a, and Beirut. The days of isolated retaliation and strategic restraint are over.
The exhaustion of American options
Let us step back and assess the broader arc. Iran has been remarkably successful in discrediting the enemy’s threats, one by one.
War? It faced two imposed wars in less than a year and emerged stronger each time. Sanctions? The crippling “maximum pressure” campaign failed to bring Iran to its knees. Blockade? Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz despite US maritime banditry. The enemy’s options are exhausted. They no longer possess their former effectiveness.
And now, even the limited confrontation option is showing signs of fragility. If the enemy intends to continue the unhinged behavior that it showed last night and if Washington still places hope in this equation, then it is deluding itself.
Asymmetric responses will now become even more critical. Unexpected and unpredictable Iranian behavior regarding the agreement could alter the equation overnight. Iran still possesses many options it has not yet acted upon.
So the fourth path is a path to nowhere. It is the choice of a power that cannot go forward, cannot go back, and cannot stand still. The US military is striking Iran now because it has run out of good options. But a bad option repeated only gets worse. And when Iran’s unpredictable responses raise the risk beyond tolerance, even this final gambit will collapse.
Then Washington will face the question it has been avoiding: accept an agreement on Iran’s terms, or admit that the era of military coercion in the Persian Gulf is over. Either way, the Islamic Republic is still calling the shots – and the enemy’s arsenal of threats is empty.
A New Economic Front: Yemen’s Entrance to Regional War against US-Israeli Alliance
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | June 11, 2026
During the Ramadan War earlier this year, Yemen’s Ansarallah’s role was notably limited – a move that is now turning out to have been strategic. The Yemeni Armed Forces now have the potential to tighten the noose of the global economy if the US-Israeli-UAE alliance seeks to escalate its war of aggression regionally.
When the Islamic Republic of Iran imposed a new equation by striking Israeli military targets in response to the bombing of southern Beirut, it did so with a carefully calibrated plan that continued after the initial 15-hour missile exchange. That is being done through the implementation of Yemen’s blockade in the Red Sea.
What has effectively just occurred is the re-imposition of the blockade in support of the Gaza Strip, which was in place until October 8, 2025. Originally, the closure of the consequential sea route – that passes through the Bab al-Mandab Strait and leads up to the Egyptian Suez Canal – was imposed on the Israelis alone. That was before the US and its European allies decided to launch naval campaigns in support of Tel Aviv.
In December of 2023, the US Biden administration launched the failed “Operation Prosperity Guardian”, which cost the American taxpayer roughly $600 million per month alone. Periodically, the intensity of the operations would increase, bringing on greater costs, yet the efforts were just an enormous waste of funds, achieving precisely nothing. During this period, Israel’s Eilat Port went bankrupt and economic strain destroyed countless Israeli businesses.
Fast forward to March of 2025, US President Donald Trump decided to step things up a notch and initiated “Operation Rough Rider” against Yemen. The Trump administration pledged to destroy Ansarallah, using B-2 Bombers to target sites believed to be storing missiles and drones – which failed to properly penetrate the bases. In the first three weeks alone, the US had spent a minimum of over $1 billion on the embarrassing operation, which was solely launched for Israeli interests. By the end of it, including equipment losses/damage, the cost was in the billions.
Yemen’s Ansarallah established an equation whereby they could strike Tel Aviv with ballistic missiles and drones, while maintaining the blockade, even preventing US ships from passing following their intervention, with the only response being airstrikes on civilian targets.
Due to a clear lack of intelligence information on the ground inside Yemen, Israel’s occasional strikes on Yemen eventually became too much of a logistical nightmare to continuously conduct. They had to accept that there was no way to stop the Yemeni Armed Forces.
Following the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, Ansarallah was expected to play a much larger role in the conflict than it did, only firing a handful of missiles towards Israeli targets. Tel Aviv didn’t even respond to these attacks, as they were overburdened already with fighting both Iran and Hezbollah simultaneously.
It could be argued that the Yemen card was never truly played during the hot war itself. Now that card is on the table. The Strait of Hormuz has been on lockdown since the start of March, the economic fallout of which has not yet been truly felt, but is beginning to take effect. Through Ansarallah’s new step, reimposing its blockade on Israeli shipping, another lever has been turned.
If the war continues escalating, it will be simple for Ansarallah to completely close the Bab al-Mandab Strait, meaning that all trade will have to be conducted without the Suez Canal. In order for cargo to reach Europe, it will have to go all the way around the African continent instead. This will mean economic devastation if the situation is not quickly reversed.
What is perhaps the most troubling part for the US Trump administration and its allies is that there is absolutely nothing they can do about it militarily. On top of this, the entire world will be feeling the effects of a war launched entirely for Israeli interests, with no real game plan at all, and all because the man in the White House couldn’t summon the strength to tell the Israelis: No!
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Iran, Russia, China reject IAEA resolution as politically driven
Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2026
Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna has issued a sharp rebuke of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors’ resolution, rejecting its call on Tehran to declare its uranium stocks and denouncing the move as a politically motivated act unworthy of a technical body.
The mission said the measure was “another political resolution” adopted through a “shaky vote,” saying it falls well short of the standards expected of an agency tasked with technical oversight of nuclear affairs.
The US-backed resolution, passed on Wednesday, calls on Tehran to declare its remaining enriched uranium stocks and allow inspectors to verify them. Submitted by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, it cleared the 35-nation board with 21 votes in favor, three against, and 10 abstentions. Russia, China, and Niger cast the three opposing votes, while Venezuela was barred from taking part.
‘Instrumentalized by warmongers’
Questioning the IAEA’s fitness to act as a neutral arbiter, the mission asked how the agency can be regarded as credible when it is “instrumentalized by warmongers” while remaining unable to register concern over “the most extensive unlawful armed attacks” on safeguarded nuclear facilities.
Iran further accused the resolution of cloaking confrontation in the language of diplomacy, noting that it purports to advance dialogue even as Washington “engages in further acts of aggression, including against Iranian civilian infrastructure, and promotes confrontation in different fora.”
Tehran made clear it does not intend to comply with “a flawed instrument,” stating that any genuine diplomatic process demands “a minimum of good faith” from all parties. Iran added that it will “protect its inalienable rights in response to this flawed resolution.”
Iran, China, Russia reject US draft
In a joint statement delivered at the Board of Governors meeting, Iran, China, and Russia denounced the US draft resolution as politically motivated and unconstructive, warning that it would further aggravate an already fragile situation.
The three countries stressed they oppose any attempt to mislead member states about the true status of Iran’s nuclear programme, including through the director general.
Strikes disrupted verification
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi revealed on Tuesday that it was US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities that had disrupted IAEA verification, forcing inspectors out of the country over safety concerns and halting routine monitoring.
Washington, he stressed, then sought to exploit that disruption to intensify pressure on Tehran through the agency’s Board of Governors.
Gharibabadi called on the international community to hold those who carried out the attacks accountable, highlighting that obstructing international verification at safeguarded facilities should be treated as a legal and international responsibility.
The US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28 with attacks on Iranian territory, including the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.
Tehran maintains its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, a position confirmed by multiple US intelligence assessments, and argues that the strikes are precisely what have made implementation of its safeguards obligations impossible at the damaged sites.
Iranian missiles pierced US defense systems, hit 70% of targets: Fars
Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2026
Preliminary data, satellite imagery assessments, and information from Iranian security services point to the success of Iran’s large-scale military operation that was carried out at dawn Wednesday, Fars News Agency reported, citing an informed military source.
According to the source, Iran’s Air and Missile Forces successfully struck 70% of the designated military targets with high precision, adding that long-range ballistic missiles and drones operated by Iran’s armed forces were able to penetrate air defense systems deployed at US military bases in the region.
Iranian missiles and drones also accurately hit their designated targets at the al-Azraq base in Jordan, the Ali al-Salem base in Kuwait, as well as the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the source stated.
Iran retaliates against 21 US-linked targets
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) announced early Wednesday that it launched an attack targeting 21 US-linked sites across the region, including the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, stressing that the operation was in response to recent American aggression on Iran.
The targets also included a US F-35 fighter jet base in al-Azraq in Jordan, as well as a command and control center at the same facility. Iranian Fars news agency reported that the IRGC used Kheibar Shekan missiles in strikes targeting F-35 hangars in Jordan.
The IRGC added that it had destroyed four high-value targets using long-range solid-fuel missiles and said a US MQ-9 drone was shot down during aerial engagements over Jam in Iran’s southern Bushehr province.
The IRGC warned that continued hostile actions would be met with “more severe and harsher responses,” signaling readiness to expand its military operations if attacks persist.
Pakistan says Israel derailed US–Iran peace deal described as ‘inches away’: Report
The Cradle | June 9, 2026
Diplomatic efforts to finalize a peace agreement between the US and Iran ran into significant delays due to Israeli violations across West Asia, Pakistani government mediators revealed to Anadolu Agency on 9 June.
US President Donald Trump told reporters in New York on Monday that a settlement could be reached in “two or three days,” yet Pakistani mediators say that such an immediate breakthrough is “unlikely.”
While Trump continues to maintain that a peace deal is close at hand, officials in Islamabad stress that the “situation is complex and has entered a sensitive phase” due to persistent Israeli military aggression in southern Lebanon.
According to sources close to the mediation, the two nations were “inches away” from concluding a temporary truce in late May, only for the momentum to be derailed by the “large-scale” Israeli incursion and the annexation of Lebanese territory.
Although a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon was established on 17 April and subsequently extended until early July, Israel has maintained daily violations, including airstrikes and ground incursions.
Pakistani officials have informed Washington that Israel’s actions in both Lebanon and Gaza are the primary obstacle to reaching a final end to the war.
The Iranian leadership has reiterated through diplomatic channels that it will not return to the negotiating table while Israeli strikes persist.
Last week, Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi traveled to Tehran for the fourth time since 28 February to deliver a “special message” to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei from the Pakistani army chief, Field Marshall Asim Munir.
Pakistan, alongside regional partners such as Qatar, is currently attempting to convince Trump to apply “maximum” pressure on Israel to halt its offensive.
Islamabad has reported receiving a “positive response” from the White House regarding the situation in Lebanon, despite the lack of an immediate cessation of attacks.
Pakistani sources told Anadolu Agency they anticipate a “breakthrough” in efforts to stop the Israeli military attacks “in a few days.”
If a halt to the fighting is achieved and direct communication between Washington and Tehran is restored, mediators believe there are “high” chances of reaching a deal “soon,” noting that the majority of conflicting issues have already been resolved.
However, the officials maintained that “this process cannot be completed within two or three days.”
Israel has continued to strike out on multiple fronts. On Tuesday morning, Israel issued a forced mass displacement order against the southern Lebanese city of Tyre (Sur) for the second time in less than a month.
At least 15 airstrikes hit Tyre on Tuesday morning, killing nine and injuring over two dozen.
Thousands of civilians were forced to flee north, joining the over 1 million already displaced throughout Lebanon.
Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon began in March, the attacks have so far killed at least 3,666 people and injured over 11,000.
On Monday, Israel also reignited a brutal campaign of collective punishment on Gaza by closing all entry points for humanitarian aid in response to Iranian retaliatory strikes triggered by Israel’s overnight violations in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
Iran had repeatedly asserted that a strike on the Lebanese capital was an unacceptable red line that should not be crossed.
US strikes cut drinking water to 20,000 in Iran’s Hormozgan province
Press TV – June 10, 2026
The managing director of the Hormozgan Water and Wastewater Company says pre-dawn US strikes have completely destroyed critical water infrastructure in the eastern part of the province, leaving more than 20,000 residents without access to drinking water as summer temperatures soar.
Abdolhamid Hamzehpour told local media Wednesday that American terrorist attacks hit the water supply facilities in Sirik county, targeting the distribution network for the town of Kuhestak and 10 villages in the Bemani district.
Hamzehpour detailed that two concrete reservoirs, with capacities of 500 and 2,000 cubic meters, along with their associated mechanical equipment, were demolished in the strikes. The destruction of the facilities has led to a complete halt in water distribution for the affected areas.
“The enemy has precisely targeted the infrastructure linked to the daily livelihood and health of the people,” Hamzehpour said, describing the act as “flagrant terrorism.”
The outage comes as the region endures peak summer temperatures, with reports that local weather hovers between 45 and 50 degrees Celsius. Officials stated that the area lacks sufficient groundwater reserves to compensate for the loss of the reservoirs, creating a critical situation for the population.
Hamzehpour condemned the loss of water access as a “clear instance of a crime against humanity,” noting that operational teams are on-site but face significant challenges due to the scale of the destruction.
The strikes on Sirik, as well as on the cities of Jask and Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz, occurred in the early hours of Wednesday. They followed Washington’s accusation that Iran downed a US Army Apache helicopter over Persian Gulf waters.
While the United States has stated its strikes targeted military infrastructure, including air defense systems and radar installations near the Strait of Hormuz, provincial Iranian officials maintain that civilian water facilities in Sirik were directly hit.
Hamzehpour confirmed that mobile water tankers have been deployed to the region as an emergency measure. However, he warned that fully restoring the destroyed pumping and storage systems will require “time and extensive technical actions.”
“The deprivation of a large population of people from water in these weather conditions is carried out under the shadow of false claims of humanitarian aid,” Hamzehpour added, according to IRNA.
In response to the acts of aggression, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) launched a series of drone and missile strikes against US military assets across the region.
In one instance, the IRGC targeted the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet with missile and drone attacks, as part of its broader retaliatory campaign.
Iranian armed forces also carried out strikes against US military facilities in Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait during the early hours of Wednesday.
Featured Video
Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- If Americans Knew
- U.S. Makes, Israel Takes: The Real Story of U.S.-Israeli Military Cooperation
- Night raids rise in Palestine
- Tucker Carlson interviews Norman Finkelstein about Gaza
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 